Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DRAZIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11044/03

  However, they pointed out that that period was substantially shorter than in the Kutic case, in which the Court found a violation of the applicants" right of access to a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00

  ACIMOVIC c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11044/03

  The Court considers, in accordance with its case-law (see Multiplex v. Croatia, cited above; and Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, ECHR 2003-XI), that the fact that the applicants were prevented by legislation for a prolonged period from having their civil claim determined by the domestic courts constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12719/87

  FREDERIKSEN c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11044/03

  The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.

 
• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12860/87

  ANDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11044/03

  The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11044/03

  Only when those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq., and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11044/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention embodies the "right to a court" of which the right of access, namely the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).