Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2020,36277
EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14 (https://dejure.org/2020,36277)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.11.2020 - 1920/14 (https://dejure.org/2020,36277)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. November 2020 - 1920/14 (https://dejure.org/2020,36277)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,36277) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PROJECT-TRADE D.O.O. v. CROATIA

    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (35)Zitiert selbst (25)

  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 39739/06

    MILJENKO KOVAC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    As regards the Government's inadmissibility objection (see paragraphs 39-41 above), the Court observes that it has already had the opportunity to examine issues related to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in cases brought by former shareholders of Croatia Bank complaining that they had been deprived of their property by the Government Decision of 23 September 1999 (see paragraph 8 above) in that their shares had been revoked and cancelled without good reason or compensation (see Batinović and Point Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 30426/03, 10 July 2007, and Miljenko Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 39739/06, 15 January 2009).

    Moreover, that decision was adopted in the case of Miljenko Kovač, who then, within six month of its adoption, i.e. on 7 September 2006, 1odged his application with the Court (see Miljenko Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 39739/06, 15 January 2009).

  • EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 30426/03

    BATINOVIC AND POINT-TRADE, D.O.O. v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    In 1999 and 2000 five shareholders of the bank (including the applicants in the case of Batinović and Point Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 30426/03, 10 July 2007, see paragraphs 48-50 below), but not the applicant company, filed four separate petitions with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) for a review of the conformity of the Government Decision with the Constitution and with the relevant primary legislation (prijedlog za ocjenu ustavnosti i zakonitosti).

    As regards the Government's inadmissibility objection (see paragraphs 39-41 above), the Court observes that it has already had the opportunity to examine issues related to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in cases brought by former shareholders of Croatia Bank complaining that they had been deprived of their property by the Government Decision of 23 September 1999 (see paragraph 8 above) in that their shares had been revoked and cancelled without good reason or compensation (see Batinović and Point Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 30426/03, 10 July 2007, and Miljenko Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 39739/06, 15 January 2009).

  • EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

    Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71, and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

    Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    71916/01 and 2 others, §§ 125-37, ECHR 2005-V; Oršuš and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 109, ECHR 2010; and Pitra, cited above, §§ 14-25).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

    CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning access to court and the length of the proceedings and those under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (see paragraphs 62-74, 75-76, 80-88 and 99-104 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of this remaining complaint (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65
    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    The Court has, however, also frequently underlined the need to apply the exhaustion rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13, and Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 69)...".
  • EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 47169/99

    Überlange Dauer eines Verfassungsbeschwerde-Verfahrens

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    In a number of cases the Court had an opportunity to examine complaints concerning length of proceedings before constitutional courts (see, for example, Süßmann, cited above, §§ 55-56; Tričković v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, § 63, 12 June 2001; Voggenreiter v. Germany, no. 47169/99, §§ 46-53, ECHR 2004-I (extracts); Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

    LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    In Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal ([GC], no. 56080/13, § 134, 19 December 2017), it stated:.
  • EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

    Transnistrien

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    Under the Court's case law, if the authorities do not justify an interference with a Convention right, the Court may find this interference disproportionate (see, for instance, Association Rhino and Others v. Switzerland, no. 48848/07, § 65, 11 October 2011; Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia, no. 33203/08, § 58, 12 June 2014; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 193-199, 23 February 2016; Biržietis v. Lithuania, no. 49304/09, § 58, 14 June 2016; Antonov and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 315/10 1153/10 1158/10, § 90 2 July 2019; and P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 29-33, 26 May 2020).
  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
    Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports 1998-I, and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 124, 20 March 2018), and having regard to its case-law (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 98-166, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts)), the Court, when giving notice of the application to the respondent Government, considered that this complaint should also be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as an access-to-court complaint.
  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

    Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  • EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

    KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 7144/15

    A AND B v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 49570/11

    GALL v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 36889/18

    BOGDAN c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 33203/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 39380/13

    VRTAR v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 22238/13

    ROMIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 44252/10

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 41075/02

    PITRA v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1122/12

    P.T. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EKMR, 19.04.1991 - 14324/88

    RUIZ-MATEOS ; AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE

  • OLG Hamburg, 22.04.2010 - 12 WF 75/10

    Verfahrenskostenhilfe für ein einstweiliges Anordnungsverfahren zum …

  • EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20

    Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …

    (see, for example, Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, no. 14324/88, Commission decision of 19 April 1991, Decisions and Reports 69, p. 22; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 52, ECHR 2002 VII; and Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 68, 19 November 2020).
  • EuGH, 05.05.2022 - C-83/20

    Die der Maßnahme zur Abwicklung der Banco Espírito Santo zugrundeliegende …

    Rn. 41 Ferner geht aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 zur EMRK hervor, dass Anteile und auf den Kapitalmärkten handelbare Anleihen als Vermögensgegenstände anzusehen sind, die in den Genuss des durch Art. 1 gewährleisteten Schutzes kommen können (EGMR, 20. September 2011, Shesti Mai Engineering OOD u. a./Bulgarien, Nr. 17854/04, § 77; EGMR, 21. Juli 2016, Mamatas u. a./Griechenland, CE:ECHR:2016:0721JUD006306614, § 90; EGMR, 19. November 2020, Project-trade d.o.o./Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2020:1119JUD000192014, § 75).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.10.2021 - C-83/20

    BPC Lux 2 u.a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Richtlinie 2014/59/EU - …

    {FN:44} Vgl. insbesondere speziell in Bezug auf Aktien eines Kreditinstituts, das Gegenstand eines Sanierungs- und Abwicklungsbeschlusses ist, EGMR, 19. November 2020, Project-trade d.o.o./Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2020:1119JUD000192014, § 75 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht