Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HODZIC v. SLOVENIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  States do not have to answer before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system, and those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see Vučković and Others, cited above, § 70, and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 115, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  46113/99 et al., § 69, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 10755/13

  UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  The Court also points out that it is ready to change its approach as to the potential effectiveness of the remedy in question, should the practice of the domestic authorities show, in the long run, that savers are being refused on formalistic grounds, that verification proceedings are excessively long or that domestic case-law is not in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Bizjak, decision cited above, § 44, and Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, § 41, 30 April 2013).

• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  Among such exceptions are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State has made available a specific remedy to redress at the domestic level grievances of persons in a similar situation (see Łatak v. Poland, no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010, and Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, § 41, 16 September 2014).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

  GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 84, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 49169/09

  STELLA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  Among such exceptions are situations where, following a pilot judgment on the merits in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State has made available a specific remedy to redress at the domestic level grievances of persons in a similar situation (see Łatak v. Poland, no. 52070/08, § 79, 12 October 2010, and Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, § 41, 16 September 2014).
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 41698/06

  MURATOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  In view of the fact that the applicant has not yet submitted a request for verification, the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Muratović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 41698/06, 21 March 2017).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13

  ANASTASOV AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  The Court has held on a number of occasions that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, a wider margin of appreciation should be left to the domestic authorities in respect of the implementation of a pilot judgment (see Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 141, ECHR 2014, Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016, and the authorities cited therein; see also Ališić and Others, cited above, §§ 106-107).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 25516/12

  BIZJAK v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

  This second type of assessment can be made, in every individual case, only after the relevant national remedy has been tried (see, mutatis mutandis, Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 43, 8 July 2014, and Anastasov and Others, decision cited above, § 72).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17

  DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY

  Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with their own legal system and traditions and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V; Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 141, ECHR 2014; Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 39, 8 July 2014; Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016; and Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 13, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 45987/22

  LANDIKA v. SLOVENIA

  In this connection, the Government also referred to the Court's findings in Hodžić v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 3461/08, § 4, 4 April 2017) and Zeljković (cited above) that the Ališić Implementation Act met the criteria set out in the pilot judgment.

  Following the implementation of Ališić and Others judgment in Slovenia, savings such as those of the applicants in Ališić and Others were included in the repayment scheme (see Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, 4 April 2017, and paragraph 32 above).

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 33805/17

  ZELJKOVIC v. SLOVENIA

  The Ališić Implementation Act is quoted in Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 4, 4 April 2017.

  The Court finally recalls that in the case of Hodžić v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 3461/08, 4 April 2017), it reached the conclusion that the Ališić Implementation Act met the criteria set out in the pilot judgment.

• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 29026/06

  [ENG]

  27451/09 and 60650/09, 23 September 2010 concerning the non-enforcement of judgments; Stella and 10 Other applications v. Italy (dec.), no. 49169/09, 16 September 2014, and Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010 concerning prison overcrowding; Techniki Olympiaki A.E. v. Greece (dec.), no. 40547/10, 1 October 2013; Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 65187/10, 18 June 2013, and Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 concerning the length of proceedings; and Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, 4 April 2017 concerning "old" foreign-currency savings).
• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 54421/21

  SZAXON v. HUNGARY

  Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with their own legal system and traditions and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned - even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V; Xynos v. Greece, no. 30226/09, § 41, 9 October 2014 and, mutatis mutandis, Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 141, ECHR 2014; Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016;and Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 13, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 11.02.2025 - 56605/19

  KOTNIK v. SLOVENIA

  It should be emphasised that the Court is not a court of first instance; it does not have the capacity (and nor is it appropriate to its function as an international court) to adjudicate on large numbers of cases which require the finding of basic facts or the calculation of monetary compensation - both of which should, as a matter of principle and effective practice, be the domain of domestic jurisdictions (see Vučković and Others, cited above, § 70, and Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 17, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 4586/18

  FULLANI v. ALBANIA

  49169/09 and 10 others, 16 September 2014, and Łatak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010 concerning prison overcrowding; Techniki Olympiaki A.E. v. Greece (dec.), no. 40547/10, 1 October 2013; Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 65187/10, 18 June 2013, and Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 concerning the length of proceedings; and Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, 4 April 2017 concerning "old" foreign-currency savings).
• EGMR, 10.09.2026 - 8276/21
  It should be emphasised that the Court is not a court of first instance; it does not have the capacity (and nor is it appropriate to its function as an international court) to adjudicate on large numbers of cases which require the finding of basic facts or the calculation of monetary compensation - both of which should, as a matter of principle and effective practice, be the domain of domestic jurisdictions (see Vučković and Others, cited above, § 70, and Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 17, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 42584/21

  B & B PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. MALTA

  Among such exceptions are situations where, following a pilot judgment in which the Court found a systemic violation of the Convention, the respondent State has introduced new or amending legislation capable of providing existing and potential victims of the systemic violation with sufficient and adequate relief at domestic level such that the Court's further examination of similar applications is no longer justified (see, for instance, Techniki Olympiaki A.E. v. Greece (dec.), no. 40547/10, 1 October 2013; Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 65187/10, 18 June 2013; and Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 concerning the length of proceedings; Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, 4 April 2017 concerning "old" foreign-currency savings, and Beshiri and Others v. Albania (dec.), no. 29026/06 and 11 others, 17 March 2020 concerning the enforcement of final decisions relating to compensation).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 42670/16

  ZIVKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 42, 8 July 2014; and Hodžić v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 18, 4 April 2017).