Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 28.06.2016

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,5860
EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. März 2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,5860) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions) (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA ET AUTRES c. CROATIE

    Partiellement irrecevable (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Délai de six mois;Non-violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (Article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Biens) (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (528)Neu Zitiert selbst (38)

  • EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

    HARKINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The purpose of the rule enunciated in Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention is: (i) to ensure the finality of the Court's decisions and to prevent applicants from seeking, through the lodging of a fresh application, to appeal against previous judgments or decisions of the Court (see the Kafkaris decision, cited above, and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, ECHR 2017), and (ii) to avoid the situation where several international bodies would be simultaneously dealing with applications which are substantially the same, that is, a situation which would be incompatible with the spirit and the letter of the Convention, which seeks to avoid a plurality of international proceedings relating to the same cases (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 520, 20 September 2011).

    In the same vein one could reproach the Grand Chamber for relying in the instant judgment on, say, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, § 520, 20 September 2011), or on Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, § 91, ECHR 2016), or on Harkins v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, ECHR 2017), or on any of the numerous very recent judgments and decisions cited extensively in paragraph 115 and elsewhere in the judgment.

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    (a) in the context of determining the scope of a case referred to the Court by the former European Commission on Human Rights (see Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, §§ 20 and 39-40, Series A no. 11; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 112; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, §§ 28-29, Series A no. 172; Philis v. Greece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, §§ 55-56, Series A no. 209; and Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, §§ 45-50, Reports 1998-V) and, after the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, when determining the scope of a case before the Grand Chamber in the light of the Chamber's decision on (in)admissibility (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §§ 45 and 48-57, 17 September 2009);.

    Master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts, the Court is empowered to examine them, if it deems it necessary and if need be of its own motion, in the light of the Convention as a whole (see, inter alia, the judgment on the merits in the "Belgian linguistic case", 23 July 1968, § 1, Series A no. 6; De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 49, Series A no. 12; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; and Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 157, Series A no. 25).

  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The wording of Article 34 indicates that a "claim" or complaint in Convention terms comprises two elements, namely factual allegations (i.e. to the effect that the claimant is the "victim" of an act or omission - see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51) and the legal arguments underpinning them (i.e. that the said act or omission entailed a "violation by [a] Contracting Party of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto").

    Indeed, in Eckle v. Germany (15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51), for example, the Court defined as constitutive of a claim the facts representing the interference, i.e. the factual allegations to the effect that the claimant is the "victim of an act or omission" (see paragraph 110 of the judgment).

     
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

    FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    In the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most notably in cases involving issues of exhaustion in substance, the Court has, along with the factual situation presented in the light of national law, placed emphasis on the Convention arguments relied upon at the national level (see, for example, Guzzardi, cited above, § 72; Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 200; B. v. France, 25 March 1992, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 232-C; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236; Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 306-B; Ahmet Sadik v. Greece, 15 November 1996, §§ 27-34, Reports 1996-V; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 33-39, ECHR 1999-I; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142-146, ECHR 2010; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 21-25, ECHR 2010; Association Les témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, §§ 25-30, 28 October 2010; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29426/08 and 29737/08, 10 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80

    GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    In the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most notably in cases involving issues of exhaustion in substance, the Court has, along with the factual situation presented in the light of national law, placed emphasis on the Convention arguments relied upon at the national level (see, for example, Guzzardi, cited above, § 72; Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 200; B. v. France, 25 March 1992, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 232-C; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236; Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 306-B; Ahmet Sadik v. Greece, 15 November 1996, §§ 27-34, Reports 1996-V; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 33-39, ECHR 1999-I; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142-146, ECHR 2010; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 21-25, ECHR 2010; Association Les témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, §§ 25-30, 28 October 2010; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29426/08 and 29737/08, 10 December 2013).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.05.2017 - C-122/16

    British Airways / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Kartelle - …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    [12] Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 30 May 2017, in the ECJ case British Airways plc v European Commission (Case C-122/16 P, ECLI:EU:C:2017:406, Opinion § 124).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2004 - C-106/03

    Vedial / HABM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    [10] See, in that regard, the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case of Vedial v OHIM (C-106/03 P, EU:C:2004:457, Opinion § 28).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

    GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The Court has also referred to claims in respect of which an applicant can argue that he has at least a "legitimate expectation" that they will be realised, that is, that he or she will obtain effective enjoyment of a property right (see, inter alia, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, § 69, ECHR 2002-VII, and Kopecký, cited above, § 35).
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    Where a proprietary interest is in the nature of a claim, it may be regarded as an "asset" only if there is a sufficient basis for that interest in national law (for example, where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts confirming it), that is, when the claim is sufficiently established as to be enforceable (see Kopecký, cited above, §§ 49 and 52, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 59, Series A no. 301-B).
  • EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

    ZAPADKA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    In trying to find the balance between the two, the Court has often stressed that "the right of access to a court is impaired when the rules cease to serve the aims of legal certainty and proper administration of justice and form a sort of barrier preventing the litigant from having his or her case determined on the merits by the competent court" (see Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 79 in fine, ECHR 2009 (extracts), and Esim, cited above, § 21; see also Zapdka v. Poland, no. 2619/05, § 61, 15 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 39544/05

    ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. CONTRE LA CROATIE

  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

    Budweiser-Streit

  • EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

    ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

    AZINAS c. CHYPRE

  • EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 8916/05

    ASSOCIATION LES TÉMOINS DE JÉHOVAH CONTRE LA FRANCE

  • EuGH, 14.12.1995 - C-430/93

    Van Schijndel / Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten

  • EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

    MEROT D.O.O. AND STORITVE TIR D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

    B. c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 57567/00

    BULENA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

    VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

    MOCNY v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 5335/06

    B.B. c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

    POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

    DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 67723/01

    PÕDER ET AUTRES c. ESTONIE

  • EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

    NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  • EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 59301/08

    TINNER c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

    D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

    FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

    PHILIS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 14.11.1960 - 332/57

    LAWLESS v. IRELAND (No. 1)

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15

    BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIA

    37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 128-30, 20 March 2018, and NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 28470/12, §§ 144-45, 5 April 2022).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 57292/16

    Recht auf Vergessenwerden: Den Unfallverursacher nicht beim Namen nennen

    Sauf si l'interprétation retenue est arbitraire ou manifestement déraisonnable, la tâche de la Cour se limite à déterminer si les effets de celle-ci sont compatibles avec la Convention (Radomilja et autres c. Croatie [GC], nos 37685/10 et 22768/12, § 149, 20 mars 2018, S., V. et A. c. Danemark [GC], nos 35553/12 et 2 autres, § 148, 22 octobre 2018, et Molla Sali c. Grèce [GC], no 20452/14, § 149, 19 décembre 2018).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12

    Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

    Thus, even at the merits stage the Grand Chamber may reconsider a decision to declare an application admissible if it concludes that it should have been declared inadmissible for one of the reasons given in the first three paragraphs of Article 35 of the Convention (ibid.; Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 102, ECHR 2018).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 22768/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,15655
EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,15655)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.06.2016 - 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,15655)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juni 2016 - 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2016,15655)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15655) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

    POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 22768/12
    By contrast, however, it seems to me that the Court cannot "create" a new complaint not invoked by the applicant (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172).
  • EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

    NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 22768/12
    Accordingly, the Court, 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 of its own motion (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III; and Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, 29 June 1999).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht