Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STATILEO v. CROATIA

  Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Statileo v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 03.09.2009 - 17124/05

  PAVLINOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 12027/10

  It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law, since the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (see Pavlinovic and Tonic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 17124/05 and 17126/05, 3 September 2009).
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 12027/10

  The Court had itself indicated that it would respect the legislature's judgment as to what was in the general interest unless that judgment was manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 29, Series A no. 315-B; and Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 45, Series A no. 169).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 12027/10

  The Court had itself indicated that it would respect the legislature's judgment as to what was in the general interest unless that judgment was manifestly without reasonable foundation (see Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 29, Series A no. 315-B; and Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 45, Series A no. 169).

• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11

  NOVRUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The problem underlying the violation the Court has found concerns the legislation itself, and the findings extend beyond the sole interests of the applicants in the instant case (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, § 165, 10 July 2014).
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 29389/11

  MYTILINAIOS ET KOSTAKIS c. GRÈCE

  La Cour rappelle que, dans plusieurs affaires où un requérant était décédé pendant la procédure, elle a pris en compte la volonté de poursuivre celle-ci exprimée par des héritiers ou parents proches (voir, par exemple, Deweer c. Belgique, 27 février 1980, §§ 37-38, série A no 35 ; X c. Royaume-Uni, 5 novembre 1981, § 32, série A no 46 ; Vocaturo c. Italie, 24 mai 1991, § 2, série A no 206-C ; G. c. Italie, 27 février 1992, § 2, série A no 228-F ; Pandolfelli et Palumbo c. Italie, 27 février 1992, § 2, série A no 231-B ; X c. France, 31 mars 1992, § 26, série A no 234-C ; Raimondo c. Italie, 22 février 1994, § 2, série A no 281-A ; Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 33071/96, CEDH 2000-XII, Zolotas c. Grèce (no 2), no 66610/09, §§ 25-27, 29 janvier 2013 et Statileo c. Croatie, no 12027/10, §§ 5 et 88-90, 10 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 48981/17

  ARAMBASIN v. CROATIA

  In reply to similar arguments in earlier cases the Court has held that the alleged violations stemmed from the national legislation itself and that the applicants therefore could not have effectively challenged the level of protected rent (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, §§ 96 and 165, 10 July 2014, and Skelin-Hrvoj and uricic v. Croatia [Committee], nos. 23414/15 and 52161/15, §§ 50-53, 10 June 2021).

 
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 28416/19

  FEJZAGIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The Court has already found a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in a number of cases concerning rent-control schemes (see, among other authorities, Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, ECHR 2006-VIII; Bittó and Others v. Slovakia, no. 30255/09, 28 January 2014; Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014; Anthony Aquilina v. Malta, no. 3851/12, 11 December 2014; and Kasmi v. Albania, no. 1175/06, 23 June 2020).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 37006/13

  GOSOVIC v. CROATIA

  Against this factual background the Municipal and the County Court held that the conditions provided in section 40(1) of the Lease of Flats Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, §§ 48-49, 10 July 2014), had not been met and that the applicant was therefore not entitled to refuse to enter into a lease contract with N.R. under the protected lease scheme.
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 41306/18

  HEGEDIS v. CROATIA

  The Court notes at the outset that, unlike other cases (see Statileo v. Croatia, no. 12027/10, 10 July 2014, and Bego and Others v. Croatia [Committee], nos. 35444/12 and four others, 15 November 2016) concerning restrictions on landlords' rights imposed by the protected lease scheme, the applicant in the instant case complained only of her inability to evict the protected lessee and move into her flat, rather than of the inadequate level of (protected) rent.