Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLJAJIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02

  In any event the Court considers, in accordance with its case-law (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II and Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 55, 10 July 2003), that the long period for which the applicant was prevented from having his civil claim determined by domestic courts as a consequence of a legislative measure constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 58112/00

  MULTIPLEX v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02

  In any event the Court considers, in accordance with its case-law (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II and Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 55, 10 July 2003), that the long period for which the applicant was prevented from having his civil claim determined by domestic courts as a consequence of a legislative measure constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12719/87

  FREDERIKSEN c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02

  The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.

 
• EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12860/87

  ANDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02

  The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention.
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention embodies the "right to a court" of which the right of access, namely the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 22681/02

  Only when those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq., and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).

• EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98

  Kovacic u. a. ./. Slowenien

  However, relying on Eckle v. Germany (15 July 1982, Series A no. 51), Jensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and Kljajic v. Croatia (no. 22681/02, 17 March 2005), they maintained that the applicants were still victims of the alleged violations since, firstly, the enforcement proceedings had not taken place in the respondent State; secondly, no compensation would be awarded to the applicants in relation to the alleged violations; and, thirdly, the authorities of the respondent State would neither expressly nor in substance acknowledge the breach of the Convention in relation to the applicants.
• EGMR, 06.11.2006 - 44574/98

  KOVACIC ET AUTRES c. SLOVENIE

  However, relying on Eckle v. Germany (judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq.), Jensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and Kljajic v. Croatia (no. 22681/02, § 23, 17 March 2005), they stressed that "an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention".