Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,47373
EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,47373)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.01.2005 - 16552/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,47373)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Januar 2005 - 16552/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,47373)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,47373) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PIKIC v. CROATIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed (englisch)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 51392/99

    GOCER v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    In particular, it is not for the Court to speculate what the outcome of the proceedings will be or whether compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention throughout might have made a difference (see, inter alia, Göçer v. the Netherlands, no. 51392/99, § 37, 3 October 2002).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 61237/00

    ACIMOVIC c. CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    The Court considers, in accordance with its case-law (see Multiplex v. Croatia, cited above; and Aćimović v. Croatia, no. 61237/00, ECHR 2003-XI), that the fact that the applicant was prevented by legislation for a prolonged period from having his civil claim determined by the domestic courts constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention embodies the "right to a court" of which the right of access, namely the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    The purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level are considered effective if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

    KUTIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    However, they pointed out that that period was substantially shorter than in the Kutić case, in which the Court found a violation of the applicants' right of access to a court (see Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    This rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    18/04/2005.
  • EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 58112/00

    MULTIPLEX v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
    Having regard to the developments in the case-law to which the Government referred, the Court accepts that, after 24 March 2004, in cases similar to the present one (see Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, 10 July 2003), the Constitutional Court, in line with its new case-law, awards compensation for the violation of the right of access to a court already sustained and sets a time-limit for the competent court to decide the complainant's case.
  • EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11

    NOVRUK v. RUSSIA

    53736/08, 53737/08, 14271/11, 17124/11, 24452/11 and 36515/11, § 72, 1 July 2014, and Pikić v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, §§ 29-33, 18 January 2005, contrast with Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, in which the applicant could still avail himself of a new remedy).
  • EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 16899/13

    KOCHEROV AND SERGEYEVA v. RUSSIA

    53736/08, 53737/08, 14271/11, 17124/11, 24452/11 and 36515/11, § 72, 1 July 2014, and Pikić v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, §§ 29-33, 18 January 2005; contrast with Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII, in which the applicant could still avail himself of a new remedy).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 44698/06

    [ENG]

    With this in mind, given the power of the Serbian Constitutional Court (see paragraph 26 above, in particular Articles 7 § 1, 82 §§ 1 and 2, 83 § 1, 89 §§ 2 and 3 of the Constitutional Court Act), as evidenced through its case-law (see paragraphs 32-34 above), as well as the competence of the Commission for Compensation (see paragraphs 26 and 35 above, in particular Articles 89 § 3 and 90 of the Constitutional Court Act quoted in paragraph 26), the Court is of the opinion that a constitutional appeal should, in principle, be considered as an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all applications introduced as of 7 August 2008, that being the date when the Constitutional Court's first decisions on the merits of the said appeals had been published in the respondent State's Official Gazette (see paragraph 33 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, §§ 24, 25 and 29, 18 January 2005).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht