Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Administrative ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 28766/06
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 28766/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  The relevant principles in this regard are set out in detail in, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII. In particular, the repeated re-examination of a single case following remittal may in itself disclose a serious deficiency in a State's judicial system (see Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  The relevant principles in this regard are set out in Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, §§ 99-100, ECHR 2006-VII, and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010.
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  The relevant principles in this regard are set out in detail in, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII. In particular, the repeated re-examination of a single case following remittal may in itself disclose a serious deficiency in a State's judicial system (see Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 51, 6 September 2005).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  As regards the applicants" complaint under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard, the Court reiterates that the relevant Article has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 31, Series A no. 172, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 180 in limine, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  As regards the applicants" complaint under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard, the Court reiterates that the relevant Article has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 31, Series A no. 172, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 180 in limine, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  By virtue of the jura novit curia principle the Court is not bound by the legal grounds adduced by the applicant under the Convention and the Protocols thereto and has the power to decide on the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a complaint by examining it under Articles or provisions of the Convention that are different from those relied upon by the applicant (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, ECHR 2018).
• EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

  PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  In any event, until it was decided that the DUP would be changed the applicants had at least a legitimate expectation of being able to carry out their proposed development and this has to be regarded, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as a component of the property in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, § 51 in fine, Series A no. 222).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  Even though it can be subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case, the Court reiterates that the effectiveness of a particular remedy is normally assessed with reference to the date on which the application was lodged (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  SINISTAJ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  Turning to the present case, the Court has already held that a request for review is an effective domestic remedy as of 4 September 2013 and only in respect of applications introduced against Montenegro after that date (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013); the action for fair redress is an effective domestic remedy as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016); and a constitutional appeal as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 59129/15

  VUCELJIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  Turning to the present case, the Court has already held that a request for review is an effective domestic remedy as of 4 September 2013 and only in respect of applications introduced against Montenegro after that date (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013); the action for fair redress is an effective domestic remedy as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016); and a constitutional appeal as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015).