Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAVLOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PAVLOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 13274/11

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  The Court has also held that the effect of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is, inter alia, to place a "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288, and Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, § 33, 21 March 2000).
• EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 46917/99

  STANKIEWICZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  Having regard to its finding relating to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Stankiewicz v. Poland, no. 46917/99, § 80, ECHR 2006-VI).
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 18712/03

  THIERMANN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  Where an applicant has failed to comply with these requirements, his or her application should in principle be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Thiermann and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 18712/03, 8 March 2007).

 
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 35, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see, for instance, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  Where an applicant has failed to comply with these requirements, his or her application should in principle be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Thiermann and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 18712/03, 8 March 2007).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 69, ECHR 2010, where the Court in addition quoted the comprehensive statement of principles set out in §§ 66 to 69 of the Akdivar and Others judgment, which in so far as relevant are reiterated here below).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  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, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  Finally, it should ensure the possibility of ascertaining the facts of the case before the chance to do so fades away, making a fair examination of the question at issue next to impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; and Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 192, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  46113/99, 3843/02, 13751/02, 13466/03, 10200/04, 14163/04, 19993/04 and 21819/04, § 69, ECHR 2010, where the Court in addition quoted the comprehensive statement of principles set out in §§ 66 to 69 of the Akdivar and Others judgment, which in so far as relevant are reiterated here below).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
• EKMR, 07.05.1985 - 10626/83

  KELLY v. the UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  PERIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.10.1999 - 40177/98

  DE PARIAS MERRY contre l'ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 77116/01

  BAYBORA and OTHERS v. CYPRUS