Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 32540/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2010,63378
EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 32540/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63378)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.04.2010 - 32540/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63378)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. April 2010 - 32540/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63378)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63378) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (9)

  • EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 15090/08

    SKENDERI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

    What the Court needs to ascertain in each given case is whether the nature of the time-limit in question and/or the manner in which it was applied is compatible with the Convention requirements (see, mutatis mutandis, Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010, as well as the authorities cited therein, in the context of Article 6 of the Convention; see also, mutatis mutandis, Krasnodebska-Kazikowska and Luniewska v. Poland, no. 26860/11, §§ 46-51, 6 October 2015, in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
  • EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

    BOGDANOVIC v. CROATIA

    What the Court needs to ascertain in a given case is whether the nature of the time-limit in question and/or the manner in which it was applied are compatible with the Convention (see Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 45611/13

    GREGURIC v. CROATIA

    What the Court needs to ascertain in a given case is whether the nature of the limitation in question and/or the manner in which it was applied are compatible with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 13488/07

    BREZOVEC v. CROATIA

    Given the nature of the applicant's complaint and the reasons for which it has found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that in the present case the most appropriate form of redress would be to reopen the proceedings complained of in due course (see, mutatis mutandis, Trgo v. Croatia, no. 35298/04, § 75, 11 June 2009, and Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, §§ 83-85, 1 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 44252/10

    BANICEVIC v. CROATIA

    What the Court needs to ascertain in a given case is whether the nature of the time-limit in question and/or the manner in which it was applied are compatible with the Convention (see Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 44284/10

    BANOVIC v. CROATIA

    What the Court needs to ascertain in a given case is whether the nature of the time-limit in question and/or the manner in which it was applied are compatible with the Convention (see Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 27630/07

    CIKANOVIC v. CROATIA

    Given the nature of the applicant's complaint and the reason for which it has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that in the present case the most appropriate way of repairing the consequences of that violation is to reopen the proceedings complained of (see Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, §§ 83-84, 1 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 50564/14

    GRIZELJ v. CROATIA

    The Court's role is limited to that of verifying compatibility with the Convention of the effects of such interpretation (see, mutatis mutandis, Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54356/14

    SPREICER v. CROATIA

    The Court's role is limited to that of verifying compatibility with the Convention of the effects of such interpretation (see, mutatis mutandis, Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht