Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 22014/04

  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, cited above, § 68, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 22014/04

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 22014/04

  The Court has already accepted that a complaint to the Constitutional Court under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act represented an effective remedy for length of proceedings still pending in Croatia (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 58174/00

  RISKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 22014/04

  The mere fact that the compensation awarded to the applicants at the domestic level does not correspond to the amounts awarded by the Court in comparable cases does not render the remedy ineffective (see for example, Jakupovic, cited above, § 28, and Risková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, § 100, 22 August 2006).

• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 22644/03

  SIMALDONE c. ITALIE

  Une telle conclusion serait déraisonnable et constituerait un obstacle disproportionné à l'exercice efficace par le requérant de son droit de recours individuel, tel que défini à l'article 34 de la Convention (voir en ce sens Vaney c. France, no 53946/00, § 53, 30 novembre 2004 et, mutatis mutandis, Kaic c. Croatie, no 22014/04, § 32, 17 juillet 2008).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 24.03.2021 - C-845/19

  Okrazhna prokuratura - Varna

  48 EGMR, 10. April 2008, Wasserman/Russland (CE:ECHR:2008:0410JUD002107105, § 55), und EGMR, 17. Juli 2008, Kaic u. a./Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2008:0717JUD002201404, § 37).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16

  NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA

  Again, the mere fact that the compensation awarded to an applicant at the domestic level does not correspond to the amounts awarded by the Court in comparable cases does not render the remedy ineffective (see, among other authorities, Risková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, § 100, 22 August 2006; Jakupovic v. Croatia, no. 12419/04, § 28, 31 July 2007; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 48, 10 April 2008; Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, § 39, 17 July 2008).

 
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA

  As to whether respect for the human rights safeguarded by the Convention and its Protocols requires the examination of the merits of the complaint, the Court observes that the issue of the length of civil proceedings in Croatia has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 35630/04

  OGRAZDEN AD AND OTHERS v.

  It therefore cannot be regarded as adequate in the circumstances of the case (see the principles established under the Court's case-law in Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 65-107, ECHR 2006-V; see also Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia, no. 24810/06, § 62, 22 December 2009) and leads to the conclusion that the redress provided to them at domestic level was insufficient (see Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, § 20, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR - 58236/21 (anhängig)

  BLT ENERJI ELEKTRIK ENERJISI TOPTAN SATI?ž SAN. VE TIC. A.S. v. CROATIA

  Was the applicant company's removal from the list of shareholders of Geoen in the register of commercial companies contrary to the interim measure of 7 September 2020? If so, was that removal and the subsequent lifting of that interim measure on 21 February 2021 contrary to the applicant company's right to have a domestic decision in its favour enforced, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 65-70, ECHR 2009), or to its right to an effective remedy, guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Skokandic v. Croatia, no. 43714/02, § 49, 31 July 2007, and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, § 40, 17 July 2008)?.
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 48768/09

  VLADUSIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, 17 July 2008), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 71080/10

  GASHI AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, 17 July 2008), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.