Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12, 74338/12, 75187/12, 80960/12, 3430/13, 32023/13, 32036/13, 38882/13 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12, 74338/12, 75187/12, 80960/12, 3430/13, 32023/13, 32036/13, 38882/13 (https://dejure.org/2015,15826)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.06.2015 - 56094/12, 74338/12, 75187/12, 80960/12, 3430/13, 32023/13, 32036/13, 38882/13 (https://dejure.org/2015,15826)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Juni 2015 - 56094/12, 74338/12, 75187/12, 80960/12, 3430/13, 32023/13, 32036/13, 38882/13 (https://dejure.org/2015,15826)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,15826) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- 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, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98
MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …
- 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, 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, 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).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,15825) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98
MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12
Furthermore, the Court must make its assessment in each case in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, nos. 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, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12
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, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03
SULWINSKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12
To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
- EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10
JERONOVICS v. LATVIA
For this purpose, the Court scrutinises carefully the Government's undertakings referred to in their unilateral declaration (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, §§ 76-79 and 83-85) and, where appropriate, interprets the extent of these undertakings in the light of its case-law (see, in the context of an application concerning the State's obligations under Article 2, Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015).Yet the Court did not require the Government to make the relevant undertaking, as it had done in Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015), which should not be regarded as an isolated case.
- EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07
MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA
It is therefore for the Court to verify, ex post facto, whether the redress afforded domestically by the Constitutional Court was appropriate and sufficient, having regard to the just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004; see also Sarisska v. Slovakia, no. 36768/09, 30 August 2011; Nic Gibb v. Ireland (dec.), no. 17707/10, 25 March 2014; and Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015). - EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63344/17
ZAHTILA AND KOLETIC v. CROATIA
This conclusion is without prejudice to the national authorities' continuing obligation to conduct an investigation in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (see Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, § 23, 9 June 2015) or to any decision the Court might take to restore the case to its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, should the national authorities fail to fulfil that obligation. - EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 12398/21
VERNAY c. FRANCE
Comme la Cour l'a déjà rappelé, s'agissant de requêtes similaires, dans trois décisions du 28 mai 2019, Bertrand et autres (déc.), no 62196/14, Renou c. France (déc.), no60073/15, et Lorin c. France (déc.), no 4626/16, cette décision ne préjuge en rien de la possibilité pour le requérant d'exercer, le cas échéant, d'autres recours au niveau national afin d'obtenir, à la lumière de l'arrêt Aycaguer précité, l'accès à une procédure permettant d'obtenir la modification du casier judiciaire concernant l'inscription de la condamnation pénale litigieuse (cf., notamment, Zarkovic et autres c. Croatie (déc.), no 75187/12, § 23, 9 juin 2015, Jeronovics c. Lettonie [GC], no 44898/10, §§ 20 et 115-118, 5 juillet 2016, Stepien c. Pologne (déc.), no 19228/07, § 78, 6 février 2018, et Trunk c. Slovénie (déc.), no 60503/15, § 32, 13 novembre 2018). - EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 62196/14
BERTRAND ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Cette décision ne préjuge en rien de la possibilité pour les requérants d'exercer, le cas échéant, d'autres recours au niveau national afin d'obtenir, à la lumière de l'arrêt Aycaguer précité, l'accès à une procédure permettant d'obtenir la modification du casier judiciaire concernant l'inscription de la condamnation pénale litigieuse (cf., notamment, Zarkovic et autres c. Croatie (déc.), no 75187/12, § 23, 9 juin 2015, Jeronovics c. Lettonie [GC], no 44898/10, §§ 20 et 115-118, 5 juillet 2016, Stepie?„ c. Pologne (déc.), no 19228/07, § 78, 6 février 2018, et Trunk c. Slovénie (déc.), no 60503/15, § 32, 13 novembre 2018).