Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,12757
EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,12757)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.06.2014 - 57856/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,12757)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Juni 2014 - 57856/11 (https://dejure.org/2014,12757)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,12757) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    JELIC v. CROATIA

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection partially dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    JELIC v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Preliminary objection partially dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (46)

  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11
    The Court further considers that the reference to "procedural acts" must be understood in the sense inherent in the procedural obligation under Article 2 or, as the case may be, Article 3 of the Convention, namely acts undertaken in the framework of criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings which are capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible or to an award of compensation to the injured party (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV, and McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324).

    As to the costs and expenses, the Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant's representative were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).

  • EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 32457/04

    BRECKNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11
    In this context, it should be noted that there is little ground to be overly prescriptive as regards the possibility of an obligation to investigate unlawful killings arising many years after the events, since the public interest in obtaining the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators is firmly recognised, particularly in the context of war crimes and crimes against humanity (see Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, § 69, 27 November 2007).

    Such an obligation on the part of the authorities to take investigative measures may be triggered when a plausible, credible allegation, piece of evidence or item of information comes to light which is relevant to the identification and eventual prosecution or punishment of those responsible (see Gutiérrez Dorado and Dorado Ortiz v. Spain (dec.), no. 30141/09, §§ 39-41, 27 March 2012; Çakir and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 7864/06, 29 April 2010; and Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-72, 27 November 2007).

  • EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

    ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11
    This investigation should be thorough, independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 115-18, 29 March 2011; and Umarova and Others v. Russia, no. 25654/08, §§ 84-88, 31 July 2012).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.06.2023 - C-118/22

    Direktor na Glavna direktsia "Natsionalna politsia" pri MVR - Sofia - Vorlage zur …

    Wie der EGMR im Zusammenhang mit der positiven Verpflichtung aus Art. 2 EMRK festgestellt hat, ist eindeutig anerkannt worden, dass auch mehrere Jahre nach den Ereignissen ein öffentliches Interesse an der Aufdeckung unerlaubter Handlungen und gegebenenfalls an der Strafverfolgung und Verurteilung ihrer Urheber besteht (EGMR, 12. Juni 2014, Jelic/Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2014:0612JUD005785611, § 52).

    64 Ich erinnere daran, dass, wie der EGMR im Zusammenhang mit der positiven Verpflichtung aus Art. 2 EMRK eindeutig anerkannt hat, auch mehrere Jahre nach den Ereignissen ein öffentliches Interesse an der Aufdeckung unerlaubter Handlungen und gegebenenfalls an der Strafverfolgung und Verurteilung ihrer Urheber besteht (EGMR, Urteil vom 12. Juni 2014, Jelic/Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2014:0612JUD005785611, § 52), wobei, so der EGMR, auch die Aufdeckung von "Cold Cases" im allgemeinen Sinne der Kriminalitätsbekämpfung im öffentlichen Interesse liege (EGMR, Urteil vom 13. Februar 2020, Gaughran/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2020:0213JUD004524515, § 93).

  • EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16

    CHONG AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 133, ECHR 2009, Çakir v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 7864/06, 29 April 2010, Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 55, 12 June 2014, he found that the "critical date" had been 13 January 1966, the date on which the United Kingdom had recognised the right of every citizen to petition this Court in relation to alleged infringements of their Convention rights.

    This position was also adopted in Cakir v. Cyprus (dec.), 7864/06, 29 April 2010, in which the Court expressly considered whether it had jurisdiction ratione temporis by reference to the date that Cyprus had accepted the right of individual petition, rather than the earlier date on which the Convention entered into force; and in Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 55, 12 June 2014, where, even though the two dates were the same, the Court nevertheless referred to the "critical date" in ? ilih as the date of "the acceptance by Slovenia of the right of individual petition".

  • EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

    KUSIC v. CROATIA

    After obtaining observations from the competent State Attorney's Office on the measures taken in the investigation, and reiterating the principles outlined in the case of Jelic v. Croatia (no. 57856/11, §§ 72-77, 12 June 2014), the Constitutional Court concluded that in that particular case the investigation following the complainant's criminal complaint filed in 2013 that a war crime had been committed against her brother could not be considered ineffective.

    This is because an action for damages, either to provide redress for the death or for the breach of official duty during the investigation, is not capable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any findings as to the identity of the perpetrators, let alone establishing their responsibility (see Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 47, 15 December 2009, and Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 64, 12 June 2014).

     
  • EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 15798/20

    VUCKOVIC v. CROATIA

    Furthermore, while the Court is mindful that the Contracting Parties in principle enjoy broad discretion in matters of penal policy (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 85, 24 January 2017), it has already stressed that retribution as a form of justice for victims and general deterrence aimed at preventing new violations and upholding the rule of law are among the main purposes of imposing criminal sanctions (see Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 90, 12 June 2014).
  • EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 1049/17

    NIKA v. ALBANIA

    The Court being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that the issues raised in the present case should be examined solely from the perspective of Article 2 of the Convention (compare Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, §§ 107-09, 12 June 2014, and M. and Others v. Croatia, no. 50175/12, § 52, 2 May 2017) which reads as follows:.
  • EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 61504/10

    TOPAL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court reiterates in this respect that it is expected of national authorities that they pursue all possible leads to establish the circumstances in which a person had died, in order to comply with their procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 86, 12 June 2014, with further references).
  • EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 8938/07

    KUKHALASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    Regard being had to this finding, the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for instance, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 123, ECHR 2005-VII; Trapeznikova and Others v. Russia, no. 45115/09, § 43, 1 December 2016; and Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 109, 12 June 2014).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 38766/15

    MILIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    The Court confirmed that an action for damages, either to provide redress for the death or for the breach of official duty during the investigation, was not capable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any findings as to the identity of the perpetrators and still less of establishing their responsibility (see Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 64, 12 June 2014).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 32349/16

    VUJNOVIC v. CROATIA

    Therefore, the relevant domestic remedy for the applicant's complaint, which would have had the potential to offer adequate redress, was a criminal investigation (compare to Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 49, 15 December 2009; see also Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, § 39, 18 March 2014, and Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 64, 12 June 2014).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 50283/13

    FOUNTAS v. GREECE

    The Court has confirmed that an action for damages, either to provide redress for a death or for a breach of an official obligation during the related investigation, is not capable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any findings as to the identity of the perpetrators and still less of establishing their responsibility (see Milic and Others v. Croatia, no. 38766/15, § 29, 25 January 2018, and Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 64, 12 June 2014).
  • EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 43664/16

    SHMELEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 25414/14

    BOPKHOYEVA v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht