Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JKP VODOVOD KRALJEVO v. SERBIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  JKP VODOVOD KRALJEVO v. SERBIA

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

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

• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 1387/04

  YERSHOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 57691/09

  As the only water and sewerage company in the municipality of Kraljevo, it provides a public service of vital importance to the municipality population (see, mutatis mutandis, Yershova v. Russia, no. 1387/04, § 58, 8 April 2010, and Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, § 209, 9 October 2014).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 57691/09

  In order to determine whether any given legal person other than a territorial authority falls within that category, account must be taken of its legal status and, where appropriate, the rights that status gives it, the nature of the activity it carries out and the context in which it is carried out, and the degree of its independence from the political authorities (see Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, § 26, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 39483/05

  LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 57691/09

  As the only water and sewerage company in the municipality of Kraljevo, it provides a public service of vital importance to the municipality population (see, mutatis mutandis, Yershova v. Russia, no. 1387/04, § 58, 8 April 2010, and Liseytseva and Maslov v. Russia, nos. 39483/05 and 40527/10, § 209, 9 October 2014).

• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 37364/10

  BOSKOCEVIC v. SERBIA

  57691/09 and 19719/10, §§ 24-28, 16 October 2018), where the Court found that a statutory utility company could not be regarded as a "non-governmental organisation" since it provided a public service and had a monopoly over that service (see, also, the general principles summarized in Slovenia v. Croatia (dec.) [GC], no. 54155/16, §§ 76-78, 18 November 2020).
• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 10857/21

  Steag

  Furthermore, the applicant company does not hold any sort of monopoly position (compare JKP Vodovod Kraljevo v. Serbia (dec.), no. 57691/09, § 26, 16 October 2018) and does not participate in the exercise of governmental powers (compare State Holding Company LUGANSKVUGILLYA v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23938/05, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 18.11.2020 - 54155/16

  SLOVÉNIE c. CROATIE

  57691/09 and 19719/10, § 24, 16 October 2018; compared with Ali?.ic and Others, cited above, §§ 114-115).