Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA and 7 other applications

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, § 161; and Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, § 86; and Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12

  Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in that respect but the ultimate decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 January 1975, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, Series A no. 18, and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 91-93, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98

  MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12

  38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98, § 36, ECHR 2000 I).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12

  Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12

  Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).

• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, §§ 30-41, 9 June 2015; Zarkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, §§ 24-35, 9 June 2015; Damjanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5306/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015; and Vukovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 3430/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  In applying the six-month time-limit for lodging an application in such cases, the following periods between the last relevant procedural step on the part of the national authorities and lodging the applications with the Court have been considered too lengthy: in the cases of Radicanin v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 75504/12, § 29, 19 May 2015) and Grubic v. Croatia it was over nine years ((dec.), no. 56094/12, § 24, 9 June 2015); in Aydin and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005) it was about seven years; and in Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002) it was about six years.
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 73223/14

  IVANEZA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In a number of cases against Croatia concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of the applicants" relatives, the Court has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should have started doubting the effectiveness of investigation (see Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 722541/11, 18 March 2014; Oric v. Croatia, no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; Gojevic-Zrnic and Mancic v. Croatia (dec)., no. 5676/13, 17 March 2015; Radicanin and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75504/12; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, 9 June 2015; Babic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 74338/12, 24 November 2015; Lovric and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 57849/13, 12 January 2016; Ribic and Others (dec.), no. 21610/13, 12 January 2016; Savic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 32023/13, 12 January 2016; Opacic and Godic Croatia (dec.), no. 28882/13, 26 January 2016; and Ivancic and Dzelajlija v. Croatia (dec.), no. 62916/13, 15 March 2016).