Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HADZIC AND SULJIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06, 33849/08
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 39446/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  Although the Government did not raise any objection as to the Court's competence ratione personae, the issue calls for consideration by the Court of its own motion (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 27, 22 December 2009).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  In principle, the "detention" of a person as a mental health patient will only be "lawful" for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 1 if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution (see also Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 44, Series A no. 93; Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; and Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 49, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 7481/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants were not afforded sufficient redress and can therefore still claim to be victims of the alleged breach within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (compare Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, §§ 22-25, 20 July 2010).

• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 2333/04

  VISNJEVAC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  The Court reiterates that where national authorities have acknowledged, at least in substance, a breach of the Convention and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the applicant concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Visnjevac v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 2333/04, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 18478/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  However, the first applicant was not awarded any compensation, although from the documents submitted to the Court it would appear that he had claimed it (contrast Alibasic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 18478/08, 29 March 2011).
• VerfG Brandenburg, 25.08.2010 - VfGBbg 11/10

  Ablehnung des Antrags auf Erlass einer eA die darauf gerichtet ist, Träger …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  37/03 of 31 July 2003, 56/03 of 14 November 2003, 78/04 of 31 December 2004, 28/05 of 11 May 2005, 55/06 of 20 September 2006, 27/07 of 18 April 2007, 53/07 of 8 August 2007, 9/09 of 11 February 2009 and 12/10 of 15 March 2010).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government had in fact been used or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see, amongst other authorities, T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 55, 16 December 1999).
• EuGH - 29/78 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Delfino / Kommission

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  The law of tort is regulated by the Civil Obligations Act 1978 (Zakon o obligacionim odnosima, published in Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ("OG SFRY") no. 29/78, amendments published in OG SFRY nos.
• EuGH, 16.08.1989 - 57/89

  Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz - Einstweilige Anordnungen - Voraussetzungen - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  3 Z 25/85|AG Günzburg; 28.04.1986; F 39/85|VG Kassel; 04.02.1986; L 39/85">39/85, 45/89 and 57/89, Official Gazette of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos.
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 39446/06

  The Court notes that the Government did not demonstrate that either at the time when the applicants lodged their applications with the Court (in 2006 and 2008) or thereafter there existed a consolidated, consistent and established practice of the civil courts in respect of compensation claims for unlawful detention under the Civil Obligations Act 1978 (contrast Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, §§ 80-82, 12 October 2010, and Lominski v. Poland (dec.), no. 33502/09, §§ 71-73, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 42/10

  PERISIC v. SERBIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
• KAG Freiburg, 09.06.2009 - 9/09

  Antrag auf Entscheidung im Eilverfahren wg. Weiterführung eines …
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 40/02

  GÜMÜSOGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 11123/04

  HADZIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen