Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 27183/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,14468) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MALBASIC v. SLOVENIA
Partly struck out of the list;Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
MALBASIC v. SLOVENIA
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 27183/08
- EGMR, 10.01.2018 - 27183/08
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93
IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 27183/08
As to the question whether the time-limit applied to the applicant's case excessively restricted his right to access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see the general principles stated in McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 34, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 63, ECHR 1999-V), the Court reiterates that according to the Kocevje Local Court's and the Ljubljana Higher Court's opinions, the applicant should have pursued his claim against the alleged legal successor of company S. within one year from the publication of the striking-off, in order to secure the enforcement of his claim against that successor (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). - EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98
MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …
- EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 31253/96
McELHINNEY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 27183/08
As to the question whether the time-limit applied to the applicant's case excessively restricted his right to access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see the general principles stated in McElhinney v. Ireland [GC], no. 31253/96, § 34, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts), and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 63, ECHR 1999-V), the Court reiterates that according to the Kocevje Local Court's and the Ljubljana Higher Court's opinions, the applicant should have pursued his claim against the alleged legal successor of company S. within one year from the publication of the striking-off, in order to secure the enforcement of his claim against that successor (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). - EGMR, 25.05.2000 - 38366/97
MIRAGALL ESCOLANO AND OTHERS v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 41)
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 27183/08
38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98, § 33, ECHR 2000-I).