Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADICANIN AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 75504/12

  However, special considerations may apply in exceptional cases where an applicant avails himself of, or relies on, an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective; in such a case it is appropriate to take as the start of the six-month period the date when he or she first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances rendering the remedy ineffective (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001).

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 75504/12

  Furthermore, it is also meant to protect the authorities and other concerned parties from being left in a state of 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, 19.05.2015 - 75504/12

  Furthermore, it is also meant to protect the authorities and other concerned parties from being left in a state of 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, 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).