Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BREZEC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Brezec v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  In this connection the Court first reiterates that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law since the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 46, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  Whether or not a particular premise constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, DR 13, p. 40; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  The Court reiterates that whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process involved in measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-XII; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007; V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 141, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 219, 14 February 2012).

 
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, § 57), is thus satisfied that the national courts" decisions ordering the applicant's eviction were in accordance with domestic law (see Ćosic, cited above, § 19).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  HARDY AND MAILE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  The Court reiterates that whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process involved in measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-XII; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007; V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 141, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 219, 14 February 2012).
• EKMR, 08.02.1978 - 7456/76

  WIGGINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  Whether or not a particular premise constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, DR 13, p. 40; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).

• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  An analogy may also be drawn with cases concerning evictions from properties previously owned by the applicants but lost by them as a result of civil proceedings brought by a private person, civil proceedings brought by a public body, or tax enforcement proceedings (see, respectively, Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, 16 July 2009 (proceedings brought by a creditor); Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013 (proceedings brought by the true owner of the premises); Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011 (proceedings brought by a municipal body); and Rousk v. Sweden, no. 27183/04, 25 July 2013 (tax enforcement proceedings)).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 28704/11

  APOSTOLOVSKI AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The date of introduction of an application for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is the date of the postmark when the applicant dispatched a duly completed application form to the Court (see Rule 47 § 6 (a) of the Rules of Court), and not the date of receipt of the application by the Court (see Bre?¾ec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 29, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 76202/16

  F.J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In Bre?¾ec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013, the Court applied the same principle in a case where the applicant had been evicted from accommodation under private ownership.

 
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24546/09

  ZAHI v. CROATIA

  Therefore the judgment by which the contract was annulled could not itself serve as grounds for the applicant's eviction (see paragraph 45 above; and compare, by contrast, Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, § 57, 9 October 2007; Ä?osic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, § 18, 15 January 2009; Paulic, cited above, § 38; Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, § 59, 21 June 2011; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 62, 29 May 2012; and Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 40, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11

  SATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates that the date of the postmark recording the date on which an application was sent is treated as the date of that application, and not the date of receipt stamped on that application (see Bre?¾ec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 29, 18 July 2013, and Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 117, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 58087/14

  ANGHEL c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour note enfin que le requérant a introduit sa requête le 25 octobre 2014, date à laquelle il a envoyé le formulaire de requête dûment rempli, le cachet de la poste faisant foi (article 47 § 6 a) du règlement ; voir aussi Abdulrahman c. Pays-Bas (déc.) no 66994/12, 5 février 2013, et Brezec c. Croatie, no 7177/10, § 29, 18 juillet 2013).
• EGMR - 6142/16 (anhängig)

  CALDARAR AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The parties are invited to make their comments with reference to, among others, the cases of McCann v. the United Kingdom, no.19009/04, ECHR 2008; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009; and Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013; Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, 24 April 2012; Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia, no. 19841/06, 11 October 2016; Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, 21 April 2016; Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, 17 October 2013 and Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 2), nos.
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 5358/14

  X AND Y v. GEORGIA

  The Court further notes, in line with its well-established case-law, that for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the date of introduction of the application is as a rule the date of the postmark recording the date on which the application was sent (see Korkmaz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42589/98, 5 September 2002; Arslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 36747/02, ECHR 2002-X (extracts); Ruzicková v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 15630/05, 16 September 2008; Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 35, 21 July 2009; and Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, §§ 28-30, 18 July 2013).