Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZLICA v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) and dismissed Violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of length of proceedings Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 29182/03

  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, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], cited above, § 68; and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 29182/03

  The Court observes at the outset that the applicant availed himself of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings - a constitutional complaint (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII) - and that the Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint.

• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 55520/07

  ROGOSIC v. CROATIA

  Otherwise, a genuine examination of the total length after the ratification is warranted (see also Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, § 23, 2 November 2006).

  In these circumstances, to ask the applicant to lodge a further request for protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time, would overstretch his duties under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Antonic-Tomasovic v. Croatia, no. 5208/03, §§ 25-34, 10 November 2005 and Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, §§ 23-28, 2 November 2006).

• EGMR, 28.10.2021 - 55064/11

  SUCCI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Aussi la Cour admet-elle que les conditions de recevabilité d'un pourvoi en cassation peuvent être plus rigoureuses que pour un appel (Levages Prestations Services, précité, § 45, Brualla Gómez de la Torre c. Espagne, 19 décembre 1997, § 37, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VIII, et Kozlica c. Croatie, no 29182/03, § 32, 2 novembre 2006 ; voir aussi Shamoyan c. Arménie, no 18499/08, § 29, 7 juillet 2015).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 3669/16

  DURKAN AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Court further reiterates that the manner in which Article 6 § 1 applies to courts of appeal or of cassation depends on the special features of the proceedings concerned and that the conditions of admissibility of an appeal on points of law may be stricter than for an ordinary appeal (see, for example, Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, § 32, 2 November 2006).

 
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA

  As to whether respect for the human rights safeguarded by the Convention and its Protocols requires the examination of the merits of the complaint, the Court observes that the issue of the length of civil proceedings in Croatia has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 17656/07

  ALAGIC v. CROATIA

  If the Constitutional Court's decisions were not consistent with Convention principles, the Court held that the applicants were not required to lodge further constitutional complaints, as that would overstretch their duties under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, §§ 23 and 28, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 70142/01

  DUNAYEV v. RUSSIA

  However, where such courts do exist, the guarantees of Article 6 must be complied with, for instance in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts (see, Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, p. 2956, § 37; and Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, § 32, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 79590/12

  MARINKOVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (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 Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, 28 January 2010), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 24335/13

  MATASOVIC AND PEICIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (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; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001 VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, 28 January 2010), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 22830/14

  VUJCIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (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; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001 VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, 28 January 2010), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 43443/11

  DUZEL v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (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; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, 28 January 2010), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 75660/12

  ZUZUL v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 29520/15

  GULIN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 27767/13

  SKUBONJA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 48768/09

  VLADUSIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 71080/10

  GASHI AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 64209/09

  CAMOVSKI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 10640/16

  BUDISCAK v. CROATIA