Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 21846/08

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 21846/08

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 21846/08

  The Court has already accepted that a complaint to the Constitutional Court under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act represented an effective remedy for length-of-proceedings cases still pending in Croatia (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).

• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 10613/16

  SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention encompasses the duty to ensure that the competent authorities enforce judicial remedies when granted (see, Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 66, ECHR 1999-II, and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, § 38, 28 January 2010).
• EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 19362/18

  MESIC v. CROATIA

  This also meant that it had to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 before any complaints concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Croatia were brought before the Court (see Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, § 36, 28 January 2010, and Mirjana Maric v. Croatia (no. 9849/15, § 37, 30 July 2020).
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 21126/13

  BUTIJER v. CROATIA

  The Court further reiterates that it had recognised both of those remedies as effective for the purposes of Articles 13 and 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Slavicek v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII, and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, § 36, 28 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 53977/14

  DERBUC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  This therefore meant that it had to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 before any complaints concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Croatia were brought before the Court (see Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, § 36, 28 January 2010).
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 12422/10

  ALEKSIC v. CROATIA

  It further refers to its judgment in the Pavic case, where it held that as of 29 December 2005 a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under sections 27 and 28 of the Courts Act has become an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of court proceedings in Croatia (see Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, § 36, 28 January 2010).
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 21497/12

  KEKO v. CROATIA

  It further refers to its judgment in the Pavic case, where it held that as of 29 December 2005 a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under sections 27 and 28 of the Courts Act has become an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of court proceedings in Croatia (see Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, § 36, 28 January 2010).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 79590/12

  MARINKOVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, 28 January 2010), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 24335/13

  MATASOVIC AND PEICIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001 VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, 28 January 2010), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 22830/14

  VUJCIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001 VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, 28 January 2010), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 43443/11

  DUZEL v. CROATIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007), including those brought against Croatia (see, for example, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Pavic v. Croatia, no. 21846/08, 28 January 2010), its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time.
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 75660/12

  ZUZUL v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 24088/07

  PTICAR v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 29520/15

  GULIN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 27767/13

  SKUBONJA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75012/12

  KRPIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 10640/16

  BUDISCAK v. CROATIA