Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CEKIC and OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 34610/97

  DOMALEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 15085/02

  The Court recalls further that even though the rights stemming from the payment of contributions to the social insurance system, in particular the right to derive benefits from such a system - for instance in the form of a pension - can be asserted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, this provision cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission decision of 1 October 1975, Decisions and Reports 3, p. 25; and Domalewski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V, pp.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 15085/02

  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 criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EKMR, 16.12.1974 - 5849/72

  MÜLLER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 15085/02

  The Court recalls further that even though the rights stemming from the payment of contributions to the social insurance system, in particular the right to derive benefits from such a system - for instance in the form of a pension - can be asserted under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, this provision cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount (Müller v. Austria, no. 5849/72, Commission decision of 1 October 1975, Decisions and Reports 3, p. 25; and Domalewski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 34610/97, ECHR 1999-V, pp.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 15085/02

  The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their Convention obligations under this provision (see e.g. Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, pp. 23-24, § 54-55 and Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 27 August 1997, Reports 1997-IV, pp. 1417, 1418, § 40).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 15085/02

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see the Schenk v. Austria, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46 and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-I, § 28).

• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 59359/15

  MARIC AND MRDANOV v. CROATIA

  The Court further notes that it has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to a reasoned decision and payment of pension arrears, which also includes cases brought against Croatia (see, for example, Jacimovic v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, §§ 46-53, 31 October 2013, and Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 71676/01

  SARNATSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 9941/03

  ROLGEZER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).

 
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 42180/02

  GAVRIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 73219/01

  FILATENKO v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 33820/04

  ANGELOVA v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among other authorities, Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 73521/01

  SEMENOVY v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 58391/00

  MALININ v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 72713/01

  UKRAINIAN MEDIA GROUP v. UKRAINE

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, for example, Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 13.05.2004 - 25968/02

  DYULDIN and KISLOV v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, e.g., Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 38015/03

  SALAMATINA v. RUSSIA