Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOTTWALD-MARKUSIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 33776/96

  POTOCKA ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 49049/06

  The subsequent judgment of the Zagreb County Court merely highlighted the already existing deprivation of property that had occurred during the Communist regime, that is, before the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997 (see, mutatis mutandis, Kefalas and Others v. Greece, 8 June 1995, § 45, Series A no. 318-A; Kefalas and Giannoulatos v. Greece, no. 14726/89, Commission's report of 17 January 1994, Series A no. 318-A, p. 23, §§ 48-49; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, § 42, ECHR 2001-X; and, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 85, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 49049/06

  Consequently, when on 5 November 1997 the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia, the applicant had no right under domestic law to compensation for the property appropriated during the Communist regime and thus did not have sufficient proprietary interest to constitute a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, see Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 122, ECHR 2002-II (extracts), and Gacesa v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43389/02, 1 April 2008).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 49049/06

  In this connection the Court first reiterates that while it is true that from the ratification date onwards all of the State's acts and omissions must conform to the Convention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A), the Convention imposes no specific obligation on the Contracting States to provide redress for wrongs or damage caused prior to that date (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, § 38, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 49049/06

  In this connection the Court first reiterates that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law since the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 46, Series A no. 33).

• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38280/10

  CAMOVSKI v. CROATIA

  The Constitutional Court was therefore called upon to consider the applicant's civil rights and obligations and a constitutional complaint was an available and effective remedy against the appeal judgment of the Pula County Court, which could have been used in the ordinary course of exhaustion of the domestic remedies concerning the property disputes (see, for example, Gottwald-Markusic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 49049/06, 30 March 2010).