Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVAK v. CROATIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NOVAK v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  In the Court's view, this limited availability of the complementary remedy distinguishes the remedies available under the 2013 Courts Act from similar (combination of) remedies existing in Slovenia and Montenegro, which the Court found to be effective (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 82, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); and Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 43603/05

  RAUS AND RAUS-RADOVANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  This feature markedly distinguishes that remedy from similar purely acceleratory remedies for the length of administrative proceedings such as an appeal and action/application for failure to respond, which the Court has recognised as effective (see Pallanich v. Austria, no. 30160/96, 30 January 2001; Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, ECHR 2001-I; and Raus and Raus-Radovanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43603/05, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  That rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention - with which it has close affinity - that there is an effective remedy available in the domestic system in respect of the alleged breach (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 22457/02

  BOZIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  Also, even if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98, ECHR 2006-VII; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and Bozic v. Croatia, no. 22457/02, § 35, 29 June 2006).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  In the alternative, the Government argued that the applicant should have lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act, a remedy that the Court had already recognised as effective (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 28898/95

  HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  However, it reached a different conclusion in the situation where resorting to the same remedy and speeding up the proceedings could not have made up for delay which had already occurred (see Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001).

• EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 11388/15

  GLAVINIC AND MARKOVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court first reiterates that a remedy for raising a complaint of a breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention cannot be considered effective if it has neither preventive nor compensatory effect in respect of the length of the proceedings complained of (see Novak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 7877/14, § 48, 7 July 2016).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 41553/18

  GURAVSKA v. LATVIA

  The Court observes that some States have also adopted remedies that combine the acceleratory and compensatory elements (see Novak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 7877/14, §§ 49-61, 14 June 2016, and Panayi v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 46370/09, 23 September 2010).