Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAJAGIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of P1-1 Not necessary to examine length complaint under Art. 6 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 30431/03

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03

  The Court recalls that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03

  However, that margin of appreciation is not unlimited and its exercise is subject to review by the Convention institutions (see Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 50-51, §§ 121-22).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03

  The purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96

  ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03

  While it is true that in the present case the Court is not empowered to examine questions linked to the deprivation of the property as such, these questions clearly being beyond its jurisdiction ratione temporis, the same does not apply to the delays in the assessment and payment of final compensation (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03

  The Court further recalls that as of 22 March 2002 a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act is considered an effective remedy in respect of the length of proceedings still pending in Croatia (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 18.09.2003 - 63779/00

  BARBACA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03

  However, in the light of the subsequent practice of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 16 above), it finds it necessary to review that case-law in respect of administrative proceedings (see Jeftic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 57576/00, 3 October 2002, and Barbaca v. Croatia (dec.), no. 63779/00, 18 September 2003).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 30431/03

  While it is true that in the present case the Court is not empowered to examine questions linked to the deprivation of the property as such, these questions clearly being beyond its jurisdiction ratione temporis, the same does not apply to the delays in the assessment and payment of final compensation (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 22279/04

  PLECHANOW v. POLAND

  Therefore, in so far as the applicants" complaints are directed against the acts and omissions of the State in relation to the enforcement of the compensation claim to which they were entitled under Polish law - an entitlement which continued to exist after 10 October 1994 having regard to the above-mentioned 1999 ruling - the Court has temporal jurisdiction to entertain that complaint (cf. Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 75-76, ECHR 2002-X; Vajagic v. Croatia, no. 30431/03, § 24, 20 July 2006).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 57752/16

  GAUCI AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Thus, the Court is empowered to examine the matter (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I, Vajagic v. Croatia, no. 30431/03, § 23, 20 July 2006, and more recently Galea and Others v. Malta, no. 68980/13, § 30, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 68980/13

  GALEA AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Thus, the Court is empowered to examine the latter matter (see Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I, and Vajagic v. Croatia, no. 30431/03, § 23, 20 July 2006).
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 24977/03

  ANA ET IOAN RADU c. ROUMANIE

  Certes, la Cour a jugé dans d'autres affaires qu'elle est compétente pour examiner la question du retard dans la détermination et le paiement des indemnisations définitives, lorsque des demandes à ce titre ont fait l'objet de procédures rentrant dans sa compétence ratione temporis (Vajagic c. Croatia, no 30431/03, §§ 23 et 24, 20 juillet 2006).