Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 25774/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,91415) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BISTROVIC CONTRE LA CROATIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BISTROVIC AGAINST CROATIA
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
- EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 25774/05
Wird zitiert von ... (2)
- EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 24756/10
COUTURON c. FRANCE
Il faut en outre rappeler que l'exercice réel et efficace du droit que garantit l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 ne dépend pas uniquement du devoir de l'État de s'abstenir de toute ingérence ; il peut exiger des mesures positives de protection, notamment là où il existe un lien direct entre les mesures qu'un requérant pourrait légitimement attendre des autorités et la jouissance effective par ce dernier de ses biens (Öneryildiz c. Turquie [GC], no 48939/99, § 134, CEDH 2004-XII ; voir aussi, notamment, Bistrovic c. Croatie, no 25774/05, § 33, 31 mai 2007). - EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 24865/15
TRYFONAS c. GRÈCE
La question de savoir si les autorités ont soigneusement examiné les arguments importants avancés par les requérants entre aussi en ligne de compte (Megadat.com SRL c. Moldova, no 21151/04, § 74, 8 avril 2008, et Bistrovic c. Croatie, no 25774/05, § 37, 31 mai 2007).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,50374) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BISTROVIC v. CROATIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of P1-1 Partly inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial claim Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
- EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 25774/05
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
It must go beneath appearances and look into the reality of the situation, which requires an overall examination of the various interests in issue; this may call for an analysis not only of the compensation terms - if the situation is akin to the taking of property (see, for example, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 50-51, §§ 120-121) - but also, as in the instant case, of the conduct of the parties to the proceedings, including the steps taken by the State (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 114, ECHR 2000-I, and Novoseltskiy v. Ukraine, cited above, § 102). - EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90
FISCHER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 requires that in the determination of civil rights and obligations, decisions taken by administrative or other authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article - as is the case in this instance with the Varazdin County State Administration Office - must be subject to subsequent control by a "judicial body that has full jurisdiction", including the power to quash in all respects, on questions of fact and law, the challenged decision (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, pp. 19-20, § 46; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 17, § 28; Schmautzer v. Austria, 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-A, p. 15, § 34; Umlauft v. Austria, 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-B, pp. 39-40, §§ 37-39; and Wos v. Poland (dec.), no. 22860/02, § 92, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75
SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
The search for this balance is inherent in the whole of the Convention and is also reflected in the structure of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, § 69 and Novoseletskiy v. Ukraine, no. 47148/99, § 101, 22 February 2005).
- EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86
BENDENOUN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 requires that in the determination of civil rights and obligations, decisions taken by administrative or other authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article - as is the case in this instance with the Varazdin County State Administration Office - must be subject to subsequent control by a "judicial body that has full jurisdiction", including the power to quash in all respects, on questions of fact and law, the challenged decision (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, pp. 19-20, § 46; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 17, § 28; Schmautzer v. Austria, 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-A, p. 15, § 34; Umlauft v. Austria, 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-B, pp. 39-40, §§ 37-39; and Wos v. Poland (dec.), no. 22860/02, § 92, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
Accordingly, the Court has recognised that Article 35 § 1 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see, for example, Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, § 34). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83
Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
Accordingly, it is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which is applicable in the instant case (see, among other authorities, the judgments in Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169, pp. 24-25, § 42 and Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 45, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 25774/05
It has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see, for example, Van Oosterwijk v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, p. 18, § 35).