Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,55946
EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55946)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.09.2012 - 67341/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55946)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. September 2012 - 67341/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55946)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55946) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (8)  

  • EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 16115/13

    MARGARETIC v. CROATIA

    The Court notes that the investigating judge, in respect of the same grounds and having been aware of the same facts, acted differently when ordering the applicant's detention on two separate occasions, a practice which has already caused concern to the Court in the cases brought before it (see Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, § 134, 25 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 38359/13

    DZINIC v. CROATIA

    In these circumstances the Court finds that the applicant made the domestic authorities sufficiently aware of his situation and gave them an adequate opportunity to assess whether the seizure of his property had been reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances (compare Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, §§ 116-117, 25 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

    LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

    As a result of the repeated adjournments, there were several long periods when no hearings were held - from 3 December 2010 to 31 March 2011, from 23 June 2011 to 7 December 2011, from 15 June 2012 to 3 October 2012, from 30 November 2012 to 3 March 2013, from 26 March 2013 to 6 October 2013, and from 26 November 2013 to 16 February 2014 - amounting to a total period of more than two years without a single hearing (see paragraph 41 above; see, mutatis mutandis, Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, § 144, 25 September 2012, and Süveges, cited above, § 101; compare and contrast Sigarev v. Russia, no. 53812/10, § 56, 30 October 2014, and Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, § 109, 10 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 56111/12

    ORBAN v. CROATIA

    In those circumstances, it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with "special diligence" (see Pesa, cited above, § 108; and compare Szepesi v. Hungary, no. 7983/06, § 27, 21 December 2010, and Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, § 138, 25 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 75068/12

    DRAGIN v. CROATIA

    In this regard the Court considers that if the applicant made the domestic courts sufficiently aware of his situation and gave them an opportunity to assess whether his detention was compatible with his Convention right to a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, it cannot be held that the applicant has failed to comply with his obligation to exhaust domestic remedies (see Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, § 114, 25 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 38415/13

    NENAD KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

    In all those cases the Court considered it important to examine whether the applicant had sufficiently brought the impugned situation, seen as a whole, to the attention of the domestic authorities and had thus given them an adequate opportunity to assess whether his detention was compatible with the Convention (see Suput, cited above, §§ 80-88; Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, §§ 115-17, 25 September 2012; Trifkovic v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, §§ 108-11, 6 November 2012; and Dragin, cited above, §§ 103-05).
  • EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

    PERICA OREB v. CROATIA

    Once sentenced to a prison term a convict is not transferred to a prison automatically, but only on the basis of a specific order, and on his or her admission to a prison an individual prison regime and programme is set up (see Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, § 123, 25 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 48073/13

    KOVESHNIKOV v. LITHUANIA

    The Court further notes that there is nothing in the material submitted to indicate that there was any significant period of inactivity on the part of the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, § 109, 10 January 2012; compare and contrast with Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, §§ 140-141, 25 September 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht