Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ACIMOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ACIMOVIC c. CROATIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 61237/00
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00

  La Cour relève néanmoins que dans les affaires Kutic et Multiplex elle a constaté une violation dans le chef des requérants du droit d'accès à la justice consacré par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention à raison du fait que les intéressés avaient longuement été privés, par l'effet d'une mesure législative, de la possibilité de voir leur demande tranchée par un tribunal (Kutic c. Croatie, no 48778/99, CEDH 2002-II, et Multiplex c. Croatie, no 58112/00, 10 juillet 2003).
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 58112/00

  MULTIPLEX v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00

  La Cour relève néanmoins que dans les affaires Kutic et Multiplex elle a constaté une violation dans le chef des requérants du droit d'accès à la justice consacré par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention à raison du fait que les intéressés avaient longuement été privés, par l'effet d'une mesure législative, de la possibilité de voir leur demande tranchée par un tribunal (Kutic c. Croatie, no 48778/99, CEDH 2002-II, et Multiplex c. Croatie, no 58112/00, 10 juillet 2003).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00

  Le principe de la prééminence du droit et la notion de procès équitable commandent de traiter avec la plus grande circonspection les raisons avancées pour justifier de pareilles mesures (arrêts Raffineries grecques Stran et Stratis Andreadis c. Grèce, 9 décembre 1994, série A no 301-B, p. 82, § 49, National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society et Yorkshire Building Society c. Royaume-Uni, 23 octobre 1997, Recueil 1997-VII, p. 2363, § 112).

• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 2708/03

  PAPUK TRGOVINA D.D. v. CROATIA

  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, 28.04.2005 - 26886/02

  URUKALO AND NEMET v. CROATIA

  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.
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02

  PIKIC v. CROATIA

  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 was prevented by legislation for a prolonged period from having his civil claim determined by the domestic courts constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 71614/01

  CRNOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Making its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court awards the applicant EUR 4, 000, plus any tax that may be chargeable (see, Multiplex cited above, § 63, Kastelic v. Croatia, no. 60533/00, § 41, 10 July 2003, and Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, § 46, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 78008/01

  VARICAK v. CROATIA

  Making its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court awards the applicant EUR 4, 000, plus any tax that may be chargeable (see Multiplex cited above, § 63, Kastelic v. Croatia, no. 60533/00, § 41, 10 July 2003, and Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, § 46, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 15739/04

  VRBOS v. CROATIA

  Therefore any reasons adduced to justify such measures have to be treated with the greatest possible degree of circumspection (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 126, to be published in ECHR 2006, and Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18221/03

  BOGUNOVIC v. CROATIA

  Therefore any reasons adduced to justify such measures have to be treated with the greatest possible degree of circumspection (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 126, to be published in ECHR 2006, and Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, § 30, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11044/03

  DRAZIC v. CROATIA

  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.
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 10955/03

  MEZNARIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  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 was prevented by legislation for a prolonged period from having his civil claim determined by the domestic courts constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02

  MARINOVIC v. CROATIA

  They further submitted that in the present case, unlike in the Acimovic case (see Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, ECHR 2003-XI) and Kutic and Multiplex cases (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002-II; Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003), the proceedings were stayed at a time when the applicant's civil rights had already been determined by the judgment of the Pozega County Court of 9 July 1998, constituting res judicata, and the case was pending before the Supreme Court following the applicant's appeal on points of law - an extraordinary remedy against that judgment.
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 16787/02

  PEIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 2343/03

  MAJDANDZIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 18322/03

  SUBASIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 12833/02

  GREGURINCIC v. CROATIA