Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RINGWALD v. CROATIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RINGWALD v. CROATIA and 1 application

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the use of secret surveillance measures are set out in the case of Dragojević v. Croatia (no. 68955/11, §§ 52-61, 15 January 2015).

  In particular, referring to the Court's findings in the Dragojević case (no. 68955/11, 15 January 2015), the Government argued that the investigating judge's orders contained detailed reasoning regarding the existence of "grounds for suspicion" of a criminal offence, as well as why an effective inquiry could not be achieved in any other way.

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 10511/10

  MURRAY v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  A decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive the applicant of his or her status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 41, 26 April 2016, and Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 57435/09

  PAULIKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  While the institution of civil proceedings for damages in itself cannot fully remedy an infringement of the right to the presumption of innocence (see Konstas v. Greece, no. 53466/07, § 29, 24 May 2011, and Paulikas v. Lithuania, no. 57435/09, § 41, 24 January 2017), such proceedings in combination with the Supreme Court's acknowledgment of a violation of his right to be presumed innocent do satisfy the requirements of effectiveness.

• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 31360/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  In several cases concerning Croatia the Court has already considered that applicants had properly exhausted domestic remedies by raising the same complaints they raised before the Court throughout the domestic proceedings, and that that was the normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012; Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, §§ 46-48, 3 October 2013; Horvatić v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, § 70, 17 October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  In several cases concerning Croatia the Court has already considered that applicants had properly exhausted domestic remedies by raising the same complaints they raised before the Court throughout the domestic proceedings, and that that was the normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012; Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, §§ 46-48, 3 October 2013; Horvatić v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, § 70, 17 October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 43317/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  This acknowledgement and the redress are most often the result of the exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, § 89, 12 October 2006, and C and D v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43317/07, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  Those orders provided reasons based on the specific facts of the case and the particular circumstances indicating probable cause for believing that the offence had been committed by the first applicant and that the investigation could not be conducted by other, less intrusive, means (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above; see also Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 260, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 2742/12

  MATANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  The Court refers to the general principles concerning the use of secret surveillance measures set out in the Dragojević judgment (cited above, §§ 78-84 and 86-89; see also Bašić v. Croatia, no. 22251/13, § 32, 25 October 2016, and Matanović v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, § 112, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 84, 9 July 2015).
• FG Hamburg, 29.07.1994 - I 58/93

  Einkommensteuer; Konstrukteur als Freiberufler?

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  The relevant part of section 186(a) of the Civil Procedure Act (Zakon o parničnom postupku, Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 91/92, 58/93, 112/99, 88/01 and 117/03) reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22251/13

  BASIC v. CROATIA
• RG, 04.03.1901 - 88/01

  Gestattet das freiwillige Abstehen auch nur einer Partei vom Zweikampfe die …
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 40523/08

  AFFAIRES PESA ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA CROATIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14

  JANUSKEVICIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  14590/15 and 25405/15, §§ 54-56, 22 January 2019).

  The majority also refers to Babjak and Others v. Slovakia (dec., no. 73693/01, 30 March 2004), Marchiani v. France (dec., no. 30392/03, 27 May 2008); and Ringwald v. Croatia ([Committee], dec., nos. 14590/15 and 25405/15, §§ 54-56, 22 January 2019), pointing out that in these cases the Court found civil-law remedies, offering the possibility of obtaining monetary compensation together with various other procedures for acknowledgment of or putting an end to the infringement of the presumption of innocence, to be effective within the meaning of the Convention (paragraph 59).

• EGMR, 23.06.2026 - 25916/18

  MARINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Tel a été le cas en Croatie où, à la suite de l'arrêt rendu par la Cour dans l'affaire Peša c. Croatie (no 40523/08, 8 avril 2010), les juridictions nationales ont commencé à formuler pareilles conclusions déclaratoires ; la Cour a pris note de ce changement d'approche dans l'affaire ultérieure Ringwald c. Croatie ((déc.) [comité], nos 14590/15 et 25405/15, § 52, 22 janvier 2019).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 33602/17

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA

  14590/15 and 25405/15, § 59, 22 January 2019).

• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 40429/14

  BOSAK v. CROATIA and 1 other application

  14590/15 and 25405/15, § 34, 22 January 2019).
• EGMR, 06.05.2025 - 3613/19

  LEMBERGS v. LATVIA

  The Court reiterates that the nature and structure of remedies in the domestic legal order, as well as the nature of the applicant's complaint (of a breach of the right to a fair trial or an attack on his "reputation" by the impugned statements) are the relevant factors taken into account by the Court when assessing the effectiveness of remedies available in the context of a criminal trial and/or separate civil proceedings (see, for instance, Lakatoš and Others v. Serbia, no. 3363/08, § 113, 7 January 2014; see also, for illustrative purposes, Ringwald v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], no. 25405/15, §§ 54-58, 22 January 2019).
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19

  MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA

  14590/15 and 25405/15, §§ 54-58, 22 January 2019; and Januškevičienė v. Lithuania, no. 69717/14, §§ 58-59, 3 September 2019).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 39712/16

  YILDIRIM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  14590/15 and 25405/15, §§ 54-56, 22 January 2019).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 49922/16

  PEJKIC v. CROATIA

  14590/15 and 25405/15, § 34, 22 January 2019).
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 53488/15

  BECCHETTI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  14590/15 and 25405/15, § 52, 22 January 2019).
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 18551/17

  GUCIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Applying the same principle, the Court has declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies a number of cases against Croatia in which the applicants had not raised their Convention grievances at the first opportunity or, at the latest, in their appeals, even though they had subsequently raised them in their constitutional complaints (see Ringwald v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], no. 14590/15 and 25405/15, §§ 59-62, 22 January 2019; Leštek v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], no. 18532/12, §§ 18-22, 20 February 2018; Bosanac v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], no. 79580/12, §§ 18-21, 20 February 2018; and Petek v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], no. 50000/12, §§ 17-21, 20 February 2018).