Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOKALO AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 17949/03

  WESOLOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that it would be premature to take a position on the substance of this complaint (see, for example, Krysziewicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 77420/01, 29 November 2005, and Wesolowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 17949/03, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 68, to be published in ECHR 2006, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  The Court reiterates that it has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, to be published in ECHR 2006).

• EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

  NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  Thus, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether Article 6 of the Convention is at all applicable to the proceedings complained of (see Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI).
• KreisG Beeskow, 02.11.1992 - C 77/92

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  The relevant provisions of the Administrative Disputes Act (Zakon o upravnim sporovima, Official Gazette nos. 53/1991, 9/92 and 77/92) provide as follows:.
• EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 30900/96

  GALLO v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 15233/05

  That being so, the Court considers that the right claimed by the applicants, namely to have the Fund's decision declared null and void on the grounds of their non-participation in the proceedings, is not recognised, even on arguable grounds, under Croatian law (see Gallo v. Slovakia, no. 30900/96, Commission decision of 4 September 1996).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 47724/07

  PCHELINTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether the applicants had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and whether that Article is consequently applicable in the instant case (compare Štokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 44, 16 October 2008).
• EGMR, 25.06.2026 - 26869/21

  PUNCEC AND NELSON v. CROATIA

  Rn. 14 In that regard, the Court firstly notes that the applicants' request to have the final decision quashed and reversed was dismissed with final effect by the High Administrative Court on the grounds that it could not have been granted in respect of the impugned decision, which had not conferred upon them any rights (see paragraph 8 above and compare, mutatis mutandis, Štokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 46, 16 October 2008).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 5076/09

  GURDULIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Until then, the Court considers that it would be premature to take a position on the applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the present case (see Skokandic v. Croatia, no. 43714/02, § 50, 31 July 2007) or on the substance of the complaint under that Article (see Stokalo and others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 68, 16 October 2008).

• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 23253/07

  JOVICIC CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  15233/05.
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 48386/09

  MITKOVA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  It was then that a "dispute" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 arose (see, for example, Štokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 48, 16 October 2008, and Janssen v. Germany, no. 23959/94, § 40, 20 December 2001).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 23253/07

  JOVICIC v. CROATIA

  The case-law of the Constitutional Court in that period was summarised in Bozic v. Croatia, no. 22457/02, § 23, 29 June 2006; Pocuca v. Croatia, no. 38550/02, § 27, 29 June 2006; Smoje v. Croatia, no. 28074/03, § 34, 11 January 2007; and Stokalo and others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, §§ 37-38, 16 October 2008).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 49529/10

  NIKOLAYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether the applicants had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and whether that Article is consequently applicable in the instant case (compare Štokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 44, 16 October 2008).
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59291/13

  ZIMONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, even though the Government in their observations raised no plea of inadmissibility concerning lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court nevertheless has to examine, of its own motion, whether the applicants had a "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and whether that Article is consequently applicable in the instant case (compare Štokalo and Others v. Croatia, no. 15233/05, § 44, 16 October 2008).