Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PROJECT-TRADE D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PROJECT-TRADE D.O.O. v. CROATIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

  Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  71916/01 and 2 others, §§ 125-37, ECHR 2005-V; Or?.u?. and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 109, ECHR 2010; and Pitra, cited above, §§ 14-25).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71, and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning access to court and the length of the proceedings and those under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (see paragraphs 62-74, 75-76, 80-88 and 99-104 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of this remaining complaint (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007).

 
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  The Court has, however, also frequently underlined the need to apply the exhaustion rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13, and Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 69)...".
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 47169/99

  Überlange Dauer eines Verfassungsbeschwerde-Verfahrens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  In a number of cases the Court had an opportunity to examine complaints concerning length of proceedings before constitutional courts (see, for example, Süßmann, cited above, §§ 55-56; Trickovic v. Slovenia, no. 39914/98, § 63, 12 June 2001; Voggenreiter v. Germany, no. 47169/99, §§ 46-53, ECHR 2004-I (extracts); Von Maltzan and Others v. Germany (dec.) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning access to court and the length of the proceedings and those under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (see paragraphs 62-74, 75-76, 80-88 and 99-104 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of this remaining complaint (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 21623/13

  KÖNYV-TÁR KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  Economic liberty is a fundamental human right which is an essential element of the right to protection of possessions enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see the dissenting opinion of Judge Wojtyczek appended to the judgment in the case of Könyv-Tár Kft and Others v. Hungary, no. 21623/13, 16 October 2018; compare also the view expressed by the Court in the judgment in the case of Dogan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803/02 and 14 others, § 139 in fine, ECHR 2004-VI (extracts): "all these economic resources and the revenue that the applicants derived from them may qualify as "possessions" for the purposes of Article 1").
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports 1998-I, and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 124, 20 March 2018), and having regard to its case-law (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 98-166, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts)), the Court, when giving notice of the application to the respondent Government, considered that this complaint should also be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as an access-to-court complaint.
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  The Court reiterates that if more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts); Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  The Court reiterates that if more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts); Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 7144/15

  A AND B v. CROATIA
• EKMR, 19.04.1991 - 14324/88

  RUIZ-MATEOS ; AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20

  Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …

  Principes généraux 594. L'article 6 de la Convention ne garantit pas un droit d'accès à un tribunal ayant compétence pour invalider ou remplacer une loi émanant du pouvoir législatif (voir, par exemple, Ruiz-Mateos et autres c. Espagne, no 14324/88, décision de la Commission du 19 avril 1991, Décisions et rapports 69, p. 22, Posti et Rahko c. Finlande, no 27824/95, § 52, CEDH 2002-VII, et Project-Trade d.o.o. c. Croatie, no 1920/14, § 68, 19 novembre 2020).
• EuGH, 05.05.2022 - C-83/20

  Die der Maßnahme zur Abwicklung der Banco Espírito Santo zugrundeliegende …

  Ferner geht aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 zur EMRK hervor, dass Anteile und auf den Kapitalmärkten handelbare Anleihen als Vermögensgegenstände anzusehen sind, die in den Genuss des durch Art. 1 gewährleisteten Schutzes kommen können (EGMR, 20. September 2011, Shesti Mai Engineering OOD u. a./Bulgarien, Nr. 17854/04, § 77; EGMR, 21. Juli 2016, Mamatas u. a./Griechenland, CE:ECHR:2016:0721JUD006306614, § 90; EGMR, 19. November 2020, Project-trade d.o.o./Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2020:1119JUD000192014, § 75).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.10.2021 - C-83/20

  BPC Lux 2 u.a.

  44 Vgl. insbesondere speziell in Bezug auf Aktien eines Kreditinstituts, das Gegenstand eines Sanierungs- und Abwicklungsbeschlusses ist, EGMR, 19. November 2020, Project-trade d.o.o./Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2020:1119JUD000192014, § 75 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung.

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.12.2021 - C-410/20

  Banco Santander - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Richtlinie 2014/59/EU - …

  53 Vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 19. November 2020, Project-Trade d.o.o./Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2020:1119JUD000192014, § 67.
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 49969/14

  PINTAR AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  The measure in question therefore constituted control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 76, 19 November 2020).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 46564/15

  KORPORATIVNA TARGOVSKA BANKA AD v. BULGARIA

  In the circumstances of this case, the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are hence not absorbed by the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and they must be examined separately (see, mutatis mutandis, Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 38, 19 November 2020).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 58598/21

  FREIRE LOPES c. PORTUGAL

  Faisant sienne la conclusion à laquelle a abouti la CJUE dans l'arrêt BPC Lux 2 et autres (arrêt du 5 mai 2022, C-83/20- point 50 ; paragraphe 71 ci-dessus), elle estime donc que la situation litigieuse relevait de la réglementation de l'usage des biens au sens du second paragraphe de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Süzer et Eksen Holding A.S. c. Turquie, no 6334/05, § 146, 23 octobre 2012, § 146, et Project-Trade d.o.o. c. Croatie, no 1920/14, § 76, 19 novembre 2020).
• EGMR, 03.03.2022 - 51853/19

  SHORAZOVA v. MALTA

  71916/01 and 2 others, §§ 125-37, ECHR 2005-V; Pitra v. Croatia, no. 41075/02, §§ 14-25, 16 June 2005; Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 109, ECHR 2010; Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 101-03, 19 November 2020; and Galea and Pavia v. Malta, nos.
• EGMR - 55261/22 (anhängig)

  CECCHETTI ANTONIA v. SAN MARINO and 38 other applications

  Was the interference with the applicants' possessions, as of 22 July 2022, in accordance with a law of sufficient quality, within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 56, 3 November 2009; Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 80-88, 19 November 2020; and Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 139, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts))?.
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 20952/21

  A.T. v. SLOVENIA

  The Court further notes that it has previously examined the length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court alone, including when those proceedings had constituted a remedy in respect of decisions given by the ordinary courts (see, for instance, Or?.u?. and Others, cited above, §§ 108 and 109, and Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, §§ 92 and 99-103, 19 November 2020).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 32986/10

  GHUKASYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA