Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PITRA v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Partly inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 41075/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 41075/02

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 45).

• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA

  So far, the Court has dealt with a number of Croatian cases where an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court against a final judgment adopted in the course of civil proceedings has been regarded as a remedy to be exhausted (see, for example, Blecic v. Croatia, no. 59532/00, §§ 22-24, 29 July 2004; Debelic v. Croatia, no. 2448/03, §§ 10 and 11, 26 May 2005; and Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, § 9, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07

  MARESTI v. CROATIA

  To date, the Court has dealt with a number of Croatian cases where an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court against a final judgment delivered in civil proceedings has been regarded as a remedy requiring exhaustion (see, for example, Blecic v. Croatia, no. 59532/00, §§ 22-24, 29 July 2004; Debelic v. Croatia, no. 2448/03, §§ 10 and 11, 26 May 2005; and Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, § 9, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 03.03.2022 - 51853/19

  SHORAZOVA v. MALTA

  71916/01 and 2 others, §§ 125-37, ECHR 2005-V; Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, §§ 14-25, 16 June 2005; Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 109, ECHR 2010; Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 101-03, 19 November 2020; and Galea and Pavia v. Malta, nos.

 
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 12422/10

  ALEKSIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for example, Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, § 21, 16 June 2005; and Beceheli v. Croatia, no. 8855/08, §§ 17 and 20, 2 May 2013).
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 29612/18

  MATKOVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to breaches of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V, and Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, §§ 18-25, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 8855/08

  BECEHELI v. CROATIA

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, for example, Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, § 21, 16 June 2005).