Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 13854/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,54047) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARINKOVIC v. CROATIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 5, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99
KUTIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 13854/02
The Court recalls its previous judgments in which it held that long periods for which those applicants were prevented from having their civil claims determined as a consequence of the 1996 Act constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II, and Freimann v. Croatia, no. 5266/02, § 28, 24 June 2004). - EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
NOGOLICA c. CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 13854/02
The Court recalls that in the Nogolica case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII), which also concerned length of proceedings, it decided that a complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act 1999 (as amended on 15 March 2002) constituted a remedy to be exhausted although the application with this Court had been filed before the introduction of that remedy. - EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 5266/02
FREIMANN v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 13854/02
The Court recalls its previous judgments in which it held that long periods for which those applicants were prevented from having their civil claims determined as a consequence of the 1996 Act constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II, and Freimann v. Croatia, no. 5266/02, § 28, 24 June 2004).
- EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 38770/02
KRIVOKUCA v. CROATIA
Rather, what is important is whether it was actually applied and whether its application resulted in proceedings being stayed for a long time (see, by converse implication, Gregurincic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 12833/02, 1 September 2005, Marinkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 13854/02, 16 June 2005 and Bijelic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 33250/02, 19 May 2005).