Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOKALO AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

  NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  Thus, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether Article 6 of the Convention is at all applicable to the proceedings complained of (see Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  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 following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 68, to be published in ECHR 2006, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  The Court reiterates that it has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, to be published in ECHR 2006).

• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 47724/07

  PCHELINTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether the applicants had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and whether that Article is consequently applicable in the instant case (compare Stokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 44, 16 October 2008).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 49529/10

  NIKOLAYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether the applicants had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and whether that Article is consequently applicable in the instant case (compare Stokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 44, 16 October 2008).
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59291/13

  ZIMONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether the applicants had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and whether that Article is consequently applicable in the instant case (compare Stokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 44, 16 October 2008).