Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 2708/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PAPUK TRGOVINA D.D. v. CROATIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 (no access to court) Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00
ACIMOVIC c. CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 2708/03
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 applicant company was prevented by legislation for a prolonged period from having its civil claim determined by the domestic courts constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.The Court notes further that although the legislative interference took place after the Convention had entered into force in respect of Croatia, it was so closely related to the events that gave rise to the applicant's claim that divorcing the two would amount to giving retroactive effect to the Convention which would be contrary to general principles of international law (see, for example, Acimovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 61237/00, 7 November 2002).
- EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99
KUTIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 2708/03
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). - EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12719/87
FREDERIKSEN c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 2708/03
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 - 2708/03
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, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 2708/03
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). - EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 2708/03
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).