Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATIC AND POLONIA DOO v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MATIC AND POLONIA DOO v. SERBIA

  Art. 6, Art. 7, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• OVG Bremen, 09.01.1990 - 2 BA 43/89

  Auszubildender; Ausbildungsförderung; Einkommen der Eltern; Unterhalt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  The Minor Offences Act 1989 (Zakon o prekrsajima, published in OG RS nos. 44/89, 21/90, 11/92, 20/93, 53/93, 67/93, 28/94, 16/97, 37/97, 36/98, 44/98 and 65/01).

  "While affirming its willingness fully to guarantee the rights enshrined in Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, Serbia and Montenegro declares that the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1[.c] and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3, shall be without prejudice to the application of Articles 75 to 321 of the Law on Minor Offences of the Republic of Serbia (Sluzbeni glasnik Socijalisticke Republike Srbije, no. 44/89; Sluzbeni glasnik Republike Srbije, nos. 21/90, 11/92, 6/93, 20/93, 53/93, 67/93, 28/94, 16/97, 37/97, 36/98, 44/98, 65/2001) that regulate proceedings before [the] magistrates" courts.".

  Turning to the specific circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the national authorities had carried out the impugned proceedings before the respondent State decided to withdraw its reservation and had based their decisions on the relevant provisions of the Minor Offences Act as covered therein (Zakon o prekrsajima, published in OG RS nos. 44/89, with amendments published in 21/90, 11/92, 20/93, 53/93, 67/93, 28/94, 16/97, 37/97, 36/98, 44/98 and 65/01).

• RG, 08.03.1889 - V 21/90

  Vorläufige Vollstreckbarkeit.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  The Minor Offences Act 1989 (Zakon o prekrsajima, published in OG RS nos. 44/89, 21/90, 11/92, 20/93, 53/93, 67/93, 28/94, 16/97, 37/97, 36/98, 44/98 and 65/01).

  "While affirming its willingness fully to guarantee the rights enshrined in Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, Serbia and Montenegro declares that the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1[.c] and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3, shall be without prejudice to the application of Articles 75 to 321 of the Law on Minor Offences of the Republic of Serbia (Sluzbeni glasnik Socijalisticke Republike Srbije, no. 44/89; Sluzbeni glasnik Republike Srbije, nos. 21/90, 11/92, 6/93, 20/93, 53/93, 67/93, 28/94, 16/97, 37/97, 36/98, 44/98, 65/2001) that regulate proceedings before [the] magistrates" courts.".

  Turning to the specific circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the national authorities had carried out the impugned proceedings before the respondent State decided to withdraw its reservation and had based their decisions on the relevant provisions of the Minor Offences Act as covered therein (Zakon o prekrsajima, published in OG RS nos. 44/89, with amendments published in 21/90, 11/92, 20/93, 53/93, 67/93, 28/94, 16/97, 37/97, 36/98, 44/98 and 65/01).

• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  However, Article 7 of the Convention does not outlaw the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, "provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen" (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; Radio France and Others, cited above, loc.

• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  Kokkinakis ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  Accordingly, it embodies, in general terms, the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  The Court reiterates that a "reservation of a general character", in Article 57 § 1, means a reservation which does not refer to a specific provision of the Convention or is couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine its exact meaning and scope (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 26, § 55; Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, p. 35, § 18; and Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, 23 October 2001).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  An individual must know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts" interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable and what penalty will be imposed for the act committed (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, §§ 139-140, ECHR 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  The Court recalls that the guarantee enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention should be interpreted and applied in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 35, Series A no. 335-B; and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 33, Series A no. 335-C).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  Finally, a law may still satisfy the requirement of foreseeability even if the person concerned has to take appropriate legal advice to assess, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 37, Series A no. 316-B; and Grigoriades v. Greece, 25 November 1997, § 37, Reports 1997-VII).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  The Court reiterates that a "reservation of a general character", in Article 57 § 1, means a reservation which does not refer to a specific provision of the Convention or is couched in terms that are too vague or broad for it to be possible to determine its exact meaning and scope (see Belilos v. Switzerland, 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 26, § 55; Chorherr v. Austria, 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-B, p. 35, § 18; and Kozlova and Smirnova v. Latvia (dec.), no. 57381/00, 23 October 2001).
• EGMR, 07.09.2004 - 58753/00

  EUROFINACOM v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  cit.; and Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38719/97

  D.P. & J.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  AKDENIZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 57381/00
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 47460/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 9074/07

  MULLAI ET AUTRES CONTRE L'ALBANIE
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 48814/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 36470/06

  PETROVIC AND GAJIC v. SERBIA
• VerfG Brandenburg, 25.08.2010 - VfGBbg 11/10

  Ablehnung des Antrags auf Erlass einer eA die darauf gerichtet ist, Träger …
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 1/10

  CALDOVIC v. SERBIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  [ENG]

  This principle was initially enunciated in the context of complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the purposes of establishing whether an interference with the right of property was foreseeable and thus "provided for by law" within the meaning of that Article (see Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-VI; Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 115-117, 23 March 2010; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 116-118, 27 May 2010; Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 67, 29 March 2011; and Matić and Polonia d.o.o. v. Serbia (dec.), no. 23001/08, § 47, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 8144/07

  ELISEEV AND RUSKI ELITNI KLUB v. SERBIA

  The Court observes that it has previously examined the validity of the said reservation (see the "Serbian reservation and related documents" section under C above) in Matić and Polonia v. Serbia (dec.), no. 23001/08, 23 May 2015 and concluded that the reservation deposited in respect of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention was in compliance with Article 57. There is no reason to decide otherwise in the present case.
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 55009/20

  HUCI c. ROUMANIE

  Rn. 39 La Cour considère que tant l'exception préliminaire du Gouvernement que, plus généralement, l'examen du respect de la règle du délai d'introduction d'une requête, qu'elle doit vérifier globalement et de son propre chef en tant que règle d'ordre public (Matić et Polonia DOO c. Serbie (déc.), no 23001/08, § 31 in fine, 23 juin 2015), exigent nécessairement qu'elle se penche sur le contenu de la requête et des griefs tels qu'ils ont été formulés par les requérants.
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 20854/15

  MILINKOVIC v. SERBIA

  Rn. 11 The Court therefore considers that Serbia's reservation in respect of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was in compliance with Article 57 (see Matić and Polonia doo v. Serbia (dec.), no. 23001/08, §§ 35-42, 23 June 2015).