Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRALICA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  In the present case, the Court does not see any reason to depart from the above principle (see, by contrast, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  In the present case, the Court does not see any reason to depart from the above principle (see, by contrast, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Andrásik and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, § 36, 1 March 2005).

 
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  57984/00, 60226/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00 and 68563/01, ECHR 2002-IX; and Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, § 36, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 16.05.2006 - 13628/03

  MIRAZOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  The general principles concerning the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies were outlined in Mirazovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ((dec.), no. 13628/03, 16 May 2006).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 69146/01

  BABYLONOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  It should be reiterated above all that, although there may be exceptions justified by the particular circumstances of each case, the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with it (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V, and Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 30.10.2007 - 17556/05

  MARCIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  It must, however, be noted that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006, and Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, §§ 64-65, 30 October 2007).
• EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 337/04

  PEJAKOVIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  337/04, 36022/04 and 45219/04, 18 December 2007.
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 38945/05

  It should be reiterated above all that, although there may be exceptions justified by the particular circumstances of each case, the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with it (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V, and Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 29760/06

  JANJIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  It must, however, be noted that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 19, 27 January 2009, and the authorities citied therein).
• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 28754/10

  MASTILOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court considers that the respondent State must also secure the enforcement of the relevant domestic decisions in respect of the eleventh, eighteenth and twenty-third applicants, even though they made no claim for just satisfaction, by way of paying them the amounts awarded domestically (see Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, §§ 19-20, 27 January 2009; and the authorities cited therein), less any amounts which may have already been paid on this basis.
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40694/13

  ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF VRHBOSNA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Having regard to its finding in the instant case, and without prejudice to any other measures which may be deemed necessary, the Court considers that the respondent State must secure immediate and full enforcement of the decision of 9 May 2003 (see, mutatis mutanids, Apostol, cited above, §§ 72-73; Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 20, 27 January 2009; and Marcic and Others, cited above, § 65).

 
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 16554/06

  UNION DÉPARTEMENTALE DES SOCIÉTÉS COOPÉRATIVES ILFOV c. ROUMANIE

  L'État défendeur est tenu d'effacer dans la mesure du possible les conséquences de la violation de manière à rétablir autant que faire se peut la situation antérieure à celle-ci (Apostol c. Géorgie, no 40765/02, § 71, CEDH 2006-XIV, Kozacioglu c. Turquie [GC], no 2334/03, § 80, 19 février 2009, et Pralica c. Bosnie-Herzégovine, no 38945/05, § 19, 27 janvier 2009).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 49915/08

  IGNJATOVIC v. SERBIA

  As regards the pecuniary damage alleged, the Court observes that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006-XIV; Marcic and Others, no. 17556/05, §§ 64-65, 30 October 2007; and Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 19, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9235/11

  NIKOLIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account (see Marcic and Others v. Serbia, no. 17556/05, §§ 63, 30 October 2007; Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 18, 27 January 2009; and Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 70, ECHR 2006).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 23496/13

  VUKOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  As regards the pecuniary damage, it is observed that a judgment, in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols, imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006-XIV, Marcic and Others, no. 17556/05, §§ 64-65, 30 October 2007; and Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 19, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 5928/13

  SERIFOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  As regards the first applicant, it is observed that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006-XIV, Marcic and Others, cited above, §§ 64-65; and Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 19, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 9302/11

  RADOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  It is observed that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no.40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006, Marcic and Others, cited above, §§ 64-65, and Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 19, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 61920/09

  PREMOVIC v. SERBIA

  It must, however, be noted that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or of its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found (see Apostol v. Georgia, no.40765/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006, Marcic and Others v. Serbia, cited above, §§ 64-65, and Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 38945/05, § 19, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 65437/10

  ZARKOV v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 75271/10

  GLIGORIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 60336/08

  BRANY AND JUGOKOKA v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 35327/09

  MAJS EKSPORT-IMPORT v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 49198/10

  JOVCOVA v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 6284/02

  SEFCIKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 28697/03

  SALUS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 14284/08

  TOMIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA