Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 12833/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,62909) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GREGURINCIC v. CROATIA
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
NOGOLICA c. CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 12833/02
The Court recalls that in the Nogolica case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII), which also concerned length of proceedings, it decided that a complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act 1999 (as amended on 15 March 2002) constituted a remedy to be exhausted although the application with this Court had been filed before the introduction of that remedy. - EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 58112/00
MULTIPLEX v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 12833/02
The Court recalls its previous judgments in which it held that long periods for which those applicants were prevented from having their civil claims determined as a consequence of the 1999 Act constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 55, 10 July 2003, Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, § 42, ECHR 2003-XI, and Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, § 42, 18 January 2005). - EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00
ACIMOVIC c. CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 12833/02
The Court recalls its previous judgments in which it held that long periods for which those applicants were prevented from having their civil claims determined as a consequence of the 1999 Act constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 55, 10 July 2003, Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, § 42, ECHR 2003-XI, and Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, § 42, 18 January 2005). - EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
PIKIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 12833/02
The Court recalls its previous judgments in which it held that long periods for which those applicants were prevented from having their civil claims determined as a consequence of the 1999 Act constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 55, 10 July 2003, Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, § 42, ECHR 2003-XI, and Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, § 42, 18 January 2005).
- EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 38770/02
KRIVOKUCA v. CROATIA
Rather, what is important is whether it was actually applied and whether its application resulted in proceedings being stayed for a long time (see, by converse implication, Gregurincic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 12833/02, 1 September 2005, Marinkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 13854/02, 16 June 2005 and Bijelic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 33250/02, 19 May 2005).