Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAULIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (34)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 28261/06

  COSIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  Further, the Court has held in Ćosic v. Croatia (no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009):.

  As we have recently said in the similar case of Ćosic v. Croatia (no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009):.

• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  Whether or not a particular premises constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, DR 13, p. 40; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, § 57), is thus satisfied that the national courts' decisions ordering the applicant's eviction were in accordance with domestic law and in particular the relevant legislation related to the disposal of the housing stock (see §§ 17-19).

• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 66746/01

  CONNORS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  The Court set out the relevant principles in assessing the necessity of an interference with the right to "home" in the case of Connors v. the United Kingdom, (no. 66746/01, §§ 81-84, 27 May 2004) which concerned summary possession proceedings.
• EuGH - 51/85 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Bonnet I

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  Under the Housing Act a specially protected tenancy could have been acquired on the basis of a final decision on allocation of a flat for occupation or any other valid legal entitlement (section 3 of the Housing Act, Official Gazette no. 51/85).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 7205/02

  STANKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  In the case of Stanková v. Slovakia (no. 7205/02, 9 October 2007) the Court held as follows:.
• EKMR, 08.02.1978 - 7456/76

  WIGGINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  Whether or not a particular premises constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, DR 13, p. 40; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  [ENG]

  In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning her right to respect for her home (see, by way of comparison, Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 25 and 26, 22 October 2009; and Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, §§ 40 and 41, 21 June 2011).

  The decision-making process leading to the measure of interference was in such circumstances not fair and did no afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the applicant by Article 8 (see, by way of comparison, Ćosic, cited above; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Orlic, cited above; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012).

• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  On this point, the case bears considerable resemblance with cases concerning the eviction of tenants from public housing (see McCann, cited above; Ćosić, cited above; Paulić v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 37341/06, 21 September 2010; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, 2 December 2010; Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 6571/04, 3 February 2011; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012), and cases concerning the eviction of occupiers from publicly owned land (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004; Yordanova and Others, cited above; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 30856/03

  [ENG]

  While the Court is not in a position to substitute its own judgment for that of the national courts and its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003-X, and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, § 39, 22 October 2009), it is the Court's function to review the reasoning adduced by domestic judicial authorities from the point of view of the Convention (see Slivenko, loc. cit.).

  In particular, even where the lawful right to occupation of the premises has come to an end, an individual should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, §§ 60-63, 9 October 2007; McCann, cited above, § 50; Ćosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 21-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 42-45, 22 October 2009).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  [ENG]

  It subsequently concluded that the applicant in the Ćosic case was not afforded such an opportunity, as the national courts had confined themselves to finding that occupation by the applicant was without legal basis, without making any further analysis as to the proportionality of the measure to be applied against her (see also Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 17.09.2026 - 3249/22

  JELAVIC v. CROATIA

  The submission of incomplete and thus misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation has been provided for the failure to disclose that information (see Gevorgyan and Others v. Armenia (dec.), no. 66535/10, §§ 33, 14 January 2020).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30499/03

  [ENG]

  As regards the Government's allegation that the Gavrylyuk-Vakiv family's claims were manifestly ill-founded as their resettlement claim had been rejected in domestic proceedings, the Court agrees that it is not in a position to substitute its own judgment for that of the national courts and its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003-X and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, § 39, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  [ENG]

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant companies did not properly exhaust domestic remedies and thus did not provide the national authorities with the opportunity, which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, of addressing, and thereby preventing or putting right, the particular Convention violation alleged against them (see, for example, l'Association Les Témoins de Jéhovah (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010 and, by converse implication, Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, § 26, 22 October 2009 and Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, § 41, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  VRZIC v. CROATIA

  In several cases against Croatia the Court has found a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their home on the grounds that the national courts had not carried out the proportionality test when eviction orders had been issued (see, for example, Ćosić, cited above; Paulić v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Orlić v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, 21 June 2011; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012; and Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 6571/04

  [ENG]

  As to the further question whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will have regard to the principles set out in its case-law (notably in Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, §§ 81-84, 27 May 2004; see also McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, 13 May 2008; and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 43-45, 22 October 2009) and consider whether the interference answered "a pressing social need" and, in particular, was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 42150/09

  [ENG]

  Therefore, competence for carrying out the test of proportionality lies with a court conducting regular civil proceedings in which the civil claim lodged by the State and seeking the applicant's eviction was determined (see Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, § 44, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24546/09

  ZAHI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 64982/12

  SKRTIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 33586/15

  AYDAROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 64855/11

  MATELJAN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 60223/09

  GUSTOVARAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR - 57824/11 (anhängig)

  KARPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 14620/09

  ZAYKINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 42353/13

  ELEZOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 76202/16

  F.J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 75045/12

  SADIKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 3925/10

  LEMO v. CROATIA and 7 other applications
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 40060/08

  BUCKLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 3468/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 48730/11 (anhängig)

  KISELEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 17657/06

  KHRUSTALEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 20832/16 (anhängig)

  KORNYUSHKINY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 74150/11 (anhängig)

  MILASHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74936/12

  PETOLAS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 14303/11

  BUDIMIR v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 2408/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 48833/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 66387/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 38906/13

  TIJARDOVIC v. CROATIA