Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUCKAL v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 29597/10

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-A, and Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-II).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 29597/10

  Nevertheless, the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies requires only that an applicant make normal use of remedies which are effective, sufficient and accessible in respect of his Convention grievances (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004, and John Sammut and Visa Investments Limited v. Malta (dec.), no. 27023/03, 28 June 2005).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 42550/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 29597/10

  However, only a complaint to a competent sentence-execution judge entails judicial protection and is susceptible to a further appeal with a three-judge panel of a competent County Court and a constitutional complaint (see Simunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011, Srbic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4464/09, 21 June 2011, Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, §§ 78-80, 8 April 2010, and Sebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, §§ 173-177, 28 June 2011).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 4464/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 29597/10

  However, only a complaint to a competent sentence-execution judge entails judicial protection and is susceptible to a further appeal with a three-judge panel of a competent County Court and a constitutional complaint (see Simunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011, Srbic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4464/09, 21 June 2011, Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, §§ 78-80, 8 April 2010, and Sebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, §§ 173-177, 28 June 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  ULEMEK v. CROATIA and 5 other applications

  Accordingly, in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity applicants are required, before bringing their complaints to the Court, to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity of remedying their situation and addressing the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012; and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 36, 6 November 2012).".

  Where applicants have failed to comply with that requirement, the Court has declared their applications inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for instance, Šimunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011; Šebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, § 177, 28 June 2011; Miljak, cited above, §§ 36-39; Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 21, 3 April 2012, and Golubar v. Croatia, no. 21951/15, §§ 30-32, 2 May 2017).

• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

  KU? IC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In cases concerning Croatia, the Court has consistently held that in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, and in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, applicants are required, before bringing their complaints to the Court, to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity of remedying their situation and addressing the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see, for example, Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012; Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 36, 6 November 2012; and Muršić, cited above, § 81).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  [ENG]

  In order to comply with the principles of subsidiarity the applicants are required, before bringing their complaints to the Court, to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity of remedying their situation and addressing the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see Simunovski, Srbic, Sebalj, § 177, cited above and Buckal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012).

• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  GOLUBAR v. CROATIA

  Indeed, in order to comply with the principles of subsidiarity applicants are required, before bringing their complaints to the Court, to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity of remedying their situation and addressing the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012, and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 36, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 5901/13

  POZAIC v. CROATIA

  Indeed, in order to comply with the principles of subsidiarity, applicants are required, before bringing their complaints to the Court, to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity of remedying their situation and addressing the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see Buckal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012, and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 36, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 29843/13

  JURIC v. CROATIA

  As to the present case the Court notes that it has consistently held that, in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, before bringing their complaints to the Court applicants are required to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity to remedy their situation and address the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see, for example, Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012; Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 36, 6 November 2012; and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 81, ECHR 2016).