Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,47835) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARINOVIC v. CROATIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 34 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99
KUTIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02
They further submitted that in the present case, unlike in the Acimovic case (see Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, ECHR 2003-XI) and Kutic and Multiplex cases (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002-II; Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003), the proceedings were stayed at a time when the applicant's civil rights had already been determined by the judgment of the Pozega County Court of 9 July 1998, constituting res judicata, and the case was pending before the Supreme Court following the applicant's appeal on points of law - an extraordinary remedy against that judgment. - EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 58112/00
MULTIPLEX v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02
They further submitted that in the present case, unlike in the Acimovic case (see Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, ECHR 2003-XI) and Kutic and Multiplex cases (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002-II; Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003), the proceedings were stayed at a time when the applicant's civil rights had already been determined by the judgment of the Pozega County Court of 9 July 1998, constituting res judicata, and the case was pending before the Supreme Court following the applicant's appeal on points of law - an extraordinary remedy against that judgment. - EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00
ACIMOVIC c. CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02
They further submitted that in the present case, unlike in the Acimovic case (see Acimovic v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, ECHR 2003-XI) and Kutic and Multiplex cases (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002-II; Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003), the proceedings were stayed at a time when the applicant's civil rights had already been determined by the judgment of the Pozega County Court of 9 July 1998, constituting res judicata, and the case was pending before the Supreme Court following the applicant's appeal on points of law - an extraordinary remedy against that judgment.
- EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12719/87
FREDERIKSEN c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02
The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention. - EKMR, 03.05.1988 - 12860/87
ANDERSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02
The Court considers that an applicant's status as a victim may depend on compensation being awarded at domestic level on the basis of the facts about which he or she complains before the Court (see Andersen v. Denmark, no. 12860/87, and Frederiksen and Others v. Denmark, no. 12719/87, Commission decisions of 3 May 1988; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; and Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003) and on whether the domestic authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention. - EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 24951/02
Only when those two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, §§ 69 et seq., and Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).