Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KALAJZIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 15382/04

  The applicant's status of a victim then depends on whether the redress afforded was adequate and sufficient having regard to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 15382/04

  Only when these conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, to be published in ECHR 2006 and Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004).
• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63994/00

  ESTOK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 15382/04

  In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicant can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered (see Cataldo v. Italy, cited above, Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 07.09.2004 - 62216/00

  SIRANCOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 15382/04

  In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicant can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered (see Cataldo v. Italy, cited above, Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004, Estok v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 63994/00, 28 September 2004, Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), cited above).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52195/12

  NOVAK v. SLOVENIA

  These include not merely the duration of the proceedings in the specific case but also the fact that under the national system compensation will in general be awarded and paid more promptly than would be the case if the matter fell to be decided by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Kalajžić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15382/04, 28 September 2006, and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004).
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03

  CAREVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Moreover, the Court notes that the proposed sum was also lower than the sum which could, according to the Court's case-law, be regarded as reasonable, taking into account factors such as the fact that that the settlement proposals were made in the context of domestic proceedings and that they were made promptly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 195-207, 213-214, 267-272; Cocchiarella, cited above, § 146; Dubjakova, cited above, and Kalajzic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15382/04, 28 September 2006).
• EGMR, 06.05.2008 - 13992/03

  ZAJC v. SLOVENIA

  The domestic procedures are also closer and more accessible than the proceedings before the Court and are processed in the applicant's own language, they thus offer an advantage that needs to be taken into account (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 195-207, 213-214, 267-272; Dubjakova, cited above, and Kalajzic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15382/04, 28 September 2006).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 34934/14

  RAKOWSKI v. POLAND

  These include not merely the duration of the proceedings in the specific case but the value of the award judged in the light of the standard of living in the State concerned, and the fact that under the national system compensation will in general be awarded and paid more promptly than would be the case if the matter fell to be decided by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention (see Društvo za varstvo upnikov v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 66433/13, 21 November 2017, § 61, and Kalazic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15382/04, 28 September 2006).
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 2343/03

  MAJDANDZIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In the light of the material in the file and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the sum awarded to the applicants can be considered sufficient and therefore appropriate redress for the violation suffered (see Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004, Sirancová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62216/00, 7 September 2004 and Kalajzic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15382/04, 28 September 2006).