Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JACIMOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Jacimovic v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09

  Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, §§ 59 and 61, Series A no. 288. and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09

  Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, §§ 59 and 61, Series A no. 288. and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09

  To be effective, a remedy must be capable of directly resolving the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 31360/10

  TARBUK v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09

  The applicant thereby provided the national authorities with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely of putting right the violations alleged against them (see Lelas, cited above, § 51; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144-146, ECHR 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, § 29, 28 October 2010; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 48, 29 May 2012; and Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  GUBERINA v. CROATIA

  He thereby, by raising explicitly his discrimination complaint, which was in substance related to his property rights, provided the Constitutional Court with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely of putting right the violations alleged against them (see, amongst many others, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144-146, ECHR 2010; Lelas v. Croatia, no. 55555/08, § 51, 20 May 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, § 29, 28 October 2010; Bjedov, cited above, § 48; Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012; and Jacimovic v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, §§ 40-41, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

  LETINCIC v. CROATIA

  Against the above background, the Court finds that the applicant sufficiently and appropriately provided the national authorities with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely that of putting right the violations alleged against them (see, for example, Jacimovic v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, § 41, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 45611/13

  GREGURIC v. CROATIA

  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case, the applicant, having put forward the issue in substance in his constitutional complaint, did thus raise the complaint which he has submitted to the Court before the domestic courts (see Jacimovic v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, § 40, 31 October 2013).

 
• EGMR - 3249/22 (anhängig)

  JELAVIC v. CROATIA

  Did the Constitutional Court give sufficient reasons for its decision, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Jacimovic v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, 31 October 2013; Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 36815/03, 14 January 2010; Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303 A; and Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B)? In particular, did it (adequately) reply to the applicant's argument that his grandmother could not have sought to convert her specially protected tenancy into a protected lease, and did it explain how its decision in his case was different from its decision in the case no. U-III-3856/2013?.
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 59359/15

  MARIC AND MRDANOV v. CROATIA

  The Court further notes that it has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to a reasoned decision and payment of pension arrears, which also includes cases brought against Croatia (see, for example, Jacimovic v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, §§ 46-53, 31 October 2013, and Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003).
• EGMR - 4593/22 (anhängig)

  BORKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Did the High Commercial Court give sufficient reasons for its decision of 4 March 2019, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Jacimovic v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, §§ 46-53, 31 October 2013; and Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 36815/03, §§ 36-39, 14 January 2010)? In particular, did it adequately reply to the applicants' argument that the claim for costs they had been ordered to pay had previously been dismissed in the bankruptcy proceedings?.
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 5493/16

  SOUKUP c. SUISSE

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la Suisse, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation du droit à un procès équitable au motif d'un rejet insuffisamment motivé d'éléments de preuves (voir, entre autres, De Haes et Gijsels c. Belgique, 24 février 1997, §§ 57 et suiv., Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-I, Suominen c. Finlande, no 37801/97, § 35, 1er juillet 2003, Jacimovic c. Croatie, no 22688/09, §§ 50 et sui., 31 octobre 2013, Steiner et Steiner-Fässler c. Suisse (déc.) no 18600/13, §§ 30-33, 7 octobre 2014, et Rachita c. Roumanie, no 15987/09, §§ 56 et suiv., 17 mai 2016).