Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOMATINOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOMATINOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (21)

• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 34929/16

  BIHORAC HAJDARAGIC v. SERBIA

  The Government relied on the decision in the case Komatinovic v. Serbia ((dec.), no. 75381/10, ECHR, 29 January 2013), in which the Court, in view of similar circumstances, rejected the applicants" submissions for an abuse of the right to petition.

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others, cited above; Predescu, cited above, §§ 25-26; and Zoran Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).

• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 16346/10

  SAFARYAN v. ARMENIA

  Lastly, not every omission of information will amount to abuse; the information in question must concern the very core of the case (see, for example, Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 5312/11

  BEG S.P.A. v. ITALY

  A deliberate attempt to mislead the Court must always be established with sufficient certainty, as mere suspicion will not be sufficient to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of application (see Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).

 
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 66535/10

  GEVORGYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Lastly, not every omission of information will amount to abuse; the information in question must concern the very core of the case (see, for example, Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  HAVIK AND VAIK v. ESTONIA

  The Court reiterates that incomplete and therefore misleading information may indeed amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and a sufficient explanation is not given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; see also Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008, and Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 50124/07

  ÇÖLGEÇEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006, and Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 24652/09

  STOJNIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  An application is likely to be dismissed on this ground if it has been established that (a) it is knowingly based on untrue facts and false declarations (see, for example, Drijfhout v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 51721/09, 22 February 2011; Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007; and Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007), or that (b) significant information and documents have been deliberately witheld, either where they were known from the outset (see Puusep v. Estonia (dec.), no. 67648/10, 7 January 2014, and Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006) or where new significant developments have occurred during the procedure (see Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013; Tatalovic and Dekic v. Serbia, no. 15422/07, 29 May 2012; and Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-27, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 16682/15

  EKIZ v. TÜRKIYE

  However, even in such cases, the applicant's intention to mislead the Court must always be established with sufficient certainty (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, with further references, and Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 63398/10

  ARI-TEM INS. TEM. GÜV. YEMEK ÜRT. HIZ. TEKS. ZIRAI ILAÇ TAAH. SAN. VE TIC. LTD. …

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention as an abuse of the right of individual application if, among other reasons, an applicant submits incomplete or misleading information, in particular if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, with further references, and Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.05.2019 - 45825/15

  MARKISIC v. SERBIA

  Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Predescu, cited above, §§ 25-26, and Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 64734/11

  LEUSKA AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 42571/06

  LAZAROV v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 414/11

  KONGRESNA NARODNA STRANKA AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 80152/12

  DRAGI PETROVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 4592/12

  DEMIRTAS v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 50419/07

  BAKIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 48793/11

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 71271/12

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 12611/13

  MIJAJLOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 28855/13

  MITIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 16919/13

  DORDEVIC v. SERBIA