Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KIRINCIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KIRINCIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA and 2 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (35)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 20862/02

  SLAVICEK contre la CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  The Court recognised that remedy as effective in terms of Article 13, which also meant that potential applicants had to use it in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, before lodging applications with the Court (see Slaviček v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002-VII).

  The Court notes that a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act was the first remedy for excessive length of proceedings in Croatia which the Court recognised as effective (see paragraphs 53 and 63 above and Slaviček v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20862/02, ECHR 2002 VII).

• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 7877/14

  NOVAK v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  The relevant provisions of the 2013 Courts Act (Zakon o sudovima, Official Gazette no. 28/13), which entered into force on 14 March 2013, are set out in Novak v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 7877/14, § 23, 7 July 2016).

  The Court reiterates that a remedy for raising a complaint about the breach of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention cannot be considered effective if it has neither preventive nor compensatory effect in respect of the length of the proceedings complained of (see Novak v. Croatia (dec.), no. 7877/14, § 48, 7 July 2016).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 72287/10

  RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 180-83 and 211-16, 7 July 2015).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09

  SAVICKAS v. LITHUANIA and 5 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  The Court has held that in cases like the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see, for example, Savickas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09, 12845/10 and 28367/11, § 86, 15 October 2013, and Provide S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 62155/00, § 18, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62155/00

  PROVIDE S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  The Court has held that in cases like the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see, for example, Savickas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09, 12845/10 and 28367/11, § 86, 15 October 2013, and Provide S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 62155/00, § 18, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 2448/03

  DEBELIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  The period to be taken into consideration thus began on 15 May 2000 when the applicants' predecessor, A.K., brought his civil action (see paragraph 8 above) and ended on 30 October 2015 when the Supreme Court's judgment of 26 May 2015 was served on the applicants (see paragraph 30 above; see also Debelić v. Croatia, no. 2448/03, §§ 19-23, 26 May 2005 and Škare v. Croatia, no. 17267/03, §§ 22-23, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 17267/03

  SKARE v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  The period to be taken into consideration thus began on 15 May 2000 when the applicants' predecessor, A.K., brought his civil action (see paragraph 8 above) and ended on 30 October 2015 when the Supreme Court's judgment of 26 May 2015 was served on the applicants (see paragraph 30 above; see also Debelić v. Croatia, no. 2448/03, §§ 19-23, 26 May 2005 and Škare v. Croatia, no. 17267/03, §§ 22-23, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 41571/07

  LÁSZLÓ KÁROLY v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Erdös v. Hungary, no. 38937/97, §§ 30-38, 9 April 2002, and László Károly v. Hungary [Committee], no.41571/07, §§ 9-10, 9 October 2012), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that in the applicants' case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the "reasonable time" requirement.
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2020 - 31386/17

  The ECtHR expressed the same view in the judgment Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) (judgment of the Grand Chamber, 29 March 2006, application no. 36813/97) and then in the judgment Sürmeli v. Germany (judgment of the Grand Chamber, 8 June 2006, application no. 75529/01):.
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 39380/13

  VRTAR v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 21846/08

  PAVIC v. CROATIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 5584/24

  JASARI v. CROATIA

  In cases such as the present one, where the criteria for the admissibility of legal remedies are the result of an interpretation by the courts, it is considered that it usually takes six months for... a sufficient degree of legal certainty [to be achieved] before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the decision that established the requirements for the use of a certain legal remedy, that is, that the individuals concerned are able and obliged to use it (see Janković and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 23244/16, § 60, 21 September 2021; Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 115, 30 July 2020...).

  It further reiterates that, in cases such as the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of an interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 115, 30 July 2020, with further references).

• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 71300/16

  BALICKI v. CROATIA

  In the leading cases of Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, 30 July 2020, and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, 30 July 2020, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, §§ 20-28, 30 July 2020, and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, §§ 98-104, 30 July 2020), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 38943/15

  SALAMEH v. CROATIA

  In the leading cases of Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, 30 July 2020 and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, 30 July 2020, the Court already found violations in respect of similar complaints.

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, §§ 120-28, 30 July 2020 and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, §§ 98-104, 30 July 2020), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

• EGMR, 21.05.2026 - 13721/23
  The Court further reiterates that a remedy available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of proceedings is "effective" within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention only if it is capable of covering all stages of the proceedings complained of and thus, in the same way as a decision given by the Court, of taking into account their overall length (see Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 110, 30 July 2020, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.08.2025 - 34012/20

  VERVELE v. GREECE

  In the judgment of Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia (no. 31386/17, 30 July 2020) the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 for excessive length of civil proceedings and of Article 13 for lack of an effective remedy.
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 36318/21

  RIZZO AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Rn. 38 In these circumstances, the Court considers that while the Constitutional Court judgments of 2020 announced a shift in practice towards awarding adequate compensation, given the lack of uniformity in the judgments throughout the year, it could not be said that there was a clear and unequivocal practice to the effect that the Constitutional Court was effectively awarding adequate compensation, and therefore that it was by 2020, at least on that basis, an already effective remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 114, 30 July 2020, see also Savickas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09, 12845/10 and 28367/11, § 77, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 41151/20

  ALTIUS INSURANCE LTD v. CYPRUS

  It is reiterated that a remedy available to a litigant at domestic level for raising a complaint about the length of proceedings is "effective" within the meaning of Article 13 and Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, only if it is capable of covering all stages of the proceedings complained of and thus, in the same way as a decision given by the Court, of taking into account their overall length (see, among others, Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 110, 30 July 2020; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, § 79, ECHR 2005-X; Koumoutsea and Others v. Greece, no 56625/00, § 17, 6 March 2003).
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 56787/16

  LADAN v. CROATIA

  In the leading cases of Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, 30 July 2020, and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, 30 July 2020, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 6598/22

  ROBERT BOSCH d.o.o. v. CROATIA

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, 30 July 2020, and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, 30 July 2020).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 48981/17

  ARAMBASIN v. CROATIA and 2 other applications

  Moreover, in cases like the present one, where the remedy in question was the result of interpretation by the courts, it normally takes six months for such a development of the case-law to acquire a sufficient degree of legal certainty before the public may be considered to be effectively aware of the domestic decision which had established the remedy and the persons concerned be enabled and obliged to use it (see, for example, Kirincic and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, § 115, 30 July 2020).
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 23244/16

  JANKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 17021/24

  STEČAJNA MASA IZA KOMPA D.O.O. U STEČAJU v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 1722/23

  KOZINA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 23586/22

  CECURA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 20362/17

  JURIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 1528/21

  PAVLOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 12905/22

  KOZINA BARISIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2022 - 12930/22

  VUKOVIC AND BAOTIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 55283/21

  STIPANCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2022 - 55813/17

  RUMOH PERNAR AND DESPOT v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2022 - 47695/21

  ALABER v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 38066/21

  BARBA AND GOPCEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 53725/20

  RENDULIC AND PERA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 38717/17

  VUKASOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.09.2021 - 59067/19

  KACIC AND TOMIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.09.2021 - 52886/18

  KALINIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2021 - 29525/17

  BALTIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 25234/23

  PREININGER AND FIZULIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 20206/15

  KOCIJAN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 3745/18

  N.O. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2022 - 14459/22

  IVANKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 41306/18

  HEGEDIS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2024 - 42068/23

  SKORIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 36983/22

  JAKSIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2021 - 22222/18

  VALENTA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA