Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38767/07

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 52166/08

  RYABKIN AND VOLOKITIN v. RUSSIA

  In any event, it has not been demonstrated that the reopening of proceedings would lead to a result substantially different from what the Government have undertaken to pay in terms of compensation (compare and contrast Saric and Others v. Croatia, nos. 38767/07 and 24 others, § 28, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 30671/08

  MASIREVIC v. SERBIA

  However, having carefully examined the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2005-IX), the Court finds that the Government have failed to establish a sufficient basis for a finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, for example, Saric and Others v. Croatia, nos. 38767/07 et seq., §§ 26-30, 18 October 2011 and Rozhin v. Russia, no. 50098/07, § 23, 6 December 2011; see also Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003 and paragraphs 29 and 32 above, Article 422.10 of the 2004 Act and Article 426.11 of the 2011 Act respectively).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 19006/07

  SIROTA v. RUSSIA

  In any event, it has not been demonstrated that the reopening of proceedings would lead to a result substantially different from what the Government have undertaken to pay in terms of compensation (compare and contrast ? aric and Others v. Croatia, nos. 38767/07 and 24 others, § 28, 18 October 2011).