Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRIVKANOVIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Locus standi;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TRIVKANOVIC v. CROATIA (NO. 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 54916/16

  The Government submitted that under the well-established case-law of the Court (they referred to Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015; Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 56, 15 December 2005; and Zasurtsev v. Russia, no. 67051/01, § 62, 27 April 2006 ) Article 6 of the Convention did not apply to proceedings concerning a failed request for the reopening of a case, because such proceedings did not normally involve the determination of "civil rights and obligations" or of "any criminal charge".
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 54916/16

  Such findings were made in response to arguments made by the respondent Government that such persons were still alive or have not been shown to have died at the hands of State agents (see, among many other authorities, Timurta?Ÿ v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 86, ECHR 2000-VI, and Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, § 100, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 54916/16

  The Government submitted that under the well-established case-law of the Court (they referred to Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015; Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 56, 15 December 2005; and Zasurtsev v. Russia, no. 67051/01, § 62, 27 April 2006 ) Article 6 of the Convention did not apply to proceedings concerning a failed request for the reopening of a case, because such proceedings did not normally involve the determination of "civil rights and obligations" or of "any criminal charge".

 
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 54916/16

  Such findings were made in response to arguments made by the respondent Government that such persons were still alive or have not been shown to have died at the hands of State agents (see, among many other authorities, Timurta?Ÿ v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 86, ECHR 2000-VI, and Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, § 100, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 27.04.2006 - 67051/01

  ZASURTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 54916/16

  The Government submitted that under the well-established case-law of the Court (they referred to Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015; Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 56, 15 December 2005; and Zasurtsev v. Russia, no. 67051/01, § 62, 27 April 2006 ) Article 6 of the Convention did not apply to proceedings concerning a failed request for the reopening of a case, because such proceedings did not normally involve the determination of "civil rights and obligations" or of "any criminal charge".
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 17671/02

  RESSEGATTI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 54916/16

  The Court's assessment 44. The Court reiterates that only in cases where the victim of the alleged violation has died in the course of domestic proceedings, and before the application was lodged with the Court, will it examine whether relatives or heirs may themselves claim to be the victims of the alleged violation (see Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, § 23, 13 July 2006).

• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 41295/19

  BALJAK AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Further relevant Supreme Court case-law is cited in Trivkanovic v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 54916/16, §§ 31-32, 21 January 2021).

  That case-law is not without significance in the present case in the context of the applicants" complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (compare Trivkanovic v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 54916/16, § 79, 21 January 2021).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 45648/18

  SUCEC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The applicants are the wife and sons of the late Z. T. (see for the facts Trivkanovic v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 54916/16, § 5, 21 January 2021, regarding concurrent proceedings brought by Z. T.'s mother).
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 78836/16

  BURSAC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In several cases against Croatia the Court has criticised the unattainable burden of proof which the civil courts imposed on plaintiffs seeking compensation for wartime damage (see Trivkanovic v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 54916/16, § 81, 21 January 2021, and Baljak and Others v. Croatia, no. 41295/19, § 41, 25 November 2021).
• EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 35853/19

  ZEC v. CROATIA

  In the present case the applicant's request for reopening was declared inadmissible on purely procedural grounds, namely for being lodged outside the five-year statutory time-limit, without the domestic courts touching upon the merits of the case in any way (see paragraph 8 above and contrast Trivkanovic v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 54916/16, § 58, 21 January 2021).