Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAJA v. CROATIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Criminal offence) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (33)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  Given that foreseeability also requires that a rule affords a measure of protection against arbitrary interferences by the public authorities (see Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 143, ECHR 2012), the Court must also ascertain whether the relevant law was sufficiently clear to provide, in accordance with the object and purpose of Article 7 of the Convention, effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction or punishment (see Vasiliauskas, cited above, § 153).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98

  Zeugen Jehovas u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  The Court further reiterates that its task is not to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, for example, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  By having therefore raised in substance the same issue at the domestic level, the applicant provided the national authorities with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely of putting right the violations alleged against them (see Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, §§ 44-46, Series A no. 104; and Lelas v. Croatia, no. 55555/08, §§ 45 and 47-52, 20 May 2010).

• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 35343/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers, having regard to its case-law (see, for example, Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, ECHR 2008; and Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, 20 October 2015), that this complaint falls to be examined exclusively under Article 7 of the Convention (see Nadtochiy v. Ukraine, no. 7460/03, § 31, 15 May 2008), which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  29426/08 29737/08, § 36, 10 December 2013).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 12.07.2013 - 6/12

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  For example, those provisions are contained in Article 4 of the agreements with the Czech Republic (Official Gazette - International Agreements nos. 88/99 and 6/12, which entered into force on 28 December 1999) and France (Official Gazette - International Agreements no. 7/04, which entered into force on 1 September 2005), as well as in Article 4 of the agreement concluded between the former Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom (Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - International Agreements no. 7/82), which entered into force on 16 September 1982 and applies to Croatia by virtue of its notification of succession on 8 October 1991.
• EGMR, 27.04.2016 - 9074/07

  MULLAI ET AUTRES CONTRE L'ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  This principle was initially enunciated in the context of complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the purposes of establishing whether an interference with the right of property was foreseeable and thus "provided for by law" within the meaning of that Article (see Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-VI; Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 115-117, 23 March 2010; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 116-118, 27 May 2010; Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 67, 29 March 2011; and Matić and Polonia d.o.o. v. Serbia (dec.), no. 23001/08, § 47, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 23001/08

  MATIC AND POLONIA DOO v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  This principle was initially enunciated in the context of complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the purposes of establishing whether an interference with the right of property was foreseeable and thus "provided for by law" within the meaning of that Article (see Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-VI; Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 115-117, 23 March 2010; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 116-118, 27 May 2010; Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 67, 29 March 2011; and Matić and Polonia d.o.o. v. Serbia (dec.), no. 23001/08, § 47, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 31524/96

  BELVEDERE ALBERGHIERA SRL c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  This principle was initially enunciated in the context of complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the purposes of establishing whether an interference with the right of property was foreseeable and thus "provided for by law" within the meaning of that Article (see Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 31524/96, § 58, ECHR 2000-VI; Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy, no. 24638/94, § 65, ECHR 2000-VI; Mullai and Others v. Albania, no. 9074/07, §§ 115-117, 23 March 2010; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 116-118, 27 May 2010; Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, § 67, 29 March 2011; and Matić and Polonia d.o.o. v. Serbia (dec.), no. 23001/08, § 47, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 34841/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37462/09

  From the (unpublished) practice of the Customs Administration (decisions nos. P-1411/07 of 11 September 2007, P-374/08 of 27 November 2008, P-967/08 of 22 December 2008, and P-520/08 of 23 April 2010) and the case-law of the High Court for Administrative Offences (decisions nos. FPž-88/09 of 28 January 2009, FPž-75/09 of 25 March 2009, FPž-1162/10 of 8 February 2011, and FPž-1285/07 of 18 May 2011), submitted by the Government, it follows that those authorities interpreted the term "persons resident" in Article 5 of Annex C to the Istanbul Convention as "persons having domicile", and in so doing referred to the definition of domicile provided in the Domicile and Residence of Citizens Act (see paragraph 32 above).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 24638/94

  CARBONARA ET VENTURA c. ITALIE
• EKMR, 24.09.1963 - 1169/61

  X. contre la REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
• EKMR, 03.10.1972 - 4681/70

  J.J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

  YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY

  11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013; Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, ECHR 2015; Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, 4 October 2016; and Pantalon v. Croatia, no. 2953/14, 19 November 2020).
• EGMR, 29.10.2026 - 14417/09

  LO SICCO c. ITALIE

  Comme l'a relevé le juge Derenčinović, la référence la plus proche est Žaja c. Croatie (no 37462/09, 4 octobre 2016), qui portait toutefois sur une autre question d'interprétation judiciaire, et non sur des divergences jurisprudentielles.

  Avant toute chose, il convient de souligner que la présente affaire se distingue nettement de l'affaire Contrada c. Italie (no 3) (no 66655/13, 14 avril 2015) ainsi que l'affaire Žaja c. Croatie (no 37462/09, 4 octobre 2016).

• EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 5232/24

  DACI v. ALBANIA

  It may also find against a State on the grounds of a conviction for an offence resulting from case-law development consolidated after the commission of that offence (for example, the offence of aiding and abetting a mafia-type organisation from the outside in Contrada v. Italy (no. 3), no. 66655/13, §§ 64-76, 14 April 2015), or the case of a conviction based on an ambiguous legal provision which had offered divergent interpretations (Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, §§ 99-106, 4 October 2016).

• EGMR - 63535/16 (anhängig)

  KAMENJASEVIC v. CROATIA

  The present case is a follow-up case to the judgment adopted in the leading case of Žaja v. Croatia (no. 37462/09, 4 October 2016) where the Court found a violation of Article 7 of the Convention on account of diverging interpretations by the domestic authorities of the notion of residence in Article 5 of Annex C to the Istanbul Convention on Temporary Admission.

  Has there been a violation of the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions foreseeable (see, mutatis mutandis, Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, §§ 93-105, 4 October 2016)?.

• EGMR, 16.07.2026 - 20409/23

  R.B. v. ITALY

  Rn. 55 Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see, for example, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 37685/10, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court considers that the applicant's complaint is to be examined solely under Article 7 of the Convention (compare Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, § 64, 4 October 2016), which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 28.05.2026 - 26187/14

  PETRIGNANI v. ITALY

  That is so because an inconsistent case-law lacks the required precision to avoid all risk of arbitrariness and enable individuals to foresee the consequences of their actions (see Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, §§ 103-105, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 68273/14
  Both of these aspects flow from the rule-of-law principle, whose central tenant is transparency and predictability or, in the language of the Court, foreseeability (see Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, § 93, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 17389/20

  YASAK v. TÜRKİYE

  Dans l'affaire Žaja c. Croatie (no 37462/09, §§ 91 et 92, 4 octobre 2016), la question était de savoir comment l'expression « personnes résidentes'était interprétée dans la législation.
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 77668/14

  IMERI v. CROATIA

  The Court first notes that, having regard to section 82(3) of the Administrative Offences Act (see paragraph 31 above), the applicant can now, relying on sections 214-216 of the same Act (see paragraph 32 above) in conjunction with section 502(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see paragraph 39 above), file a request for reopening of the administrative offence proceedings in respect of which the Court has found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, § 114, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 03.12.2024 - 57507/19

  SVRTAN v. CROATIA

  Therefore, by raising the same issue in substance at domestic level, the applicants provided the national authorities with the opportunity which is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, namely to put right the violations alleged against them (see Mesić, cited above, § 47; Lelas v. Croatia, no. 55555/08, §§ 45 and 47-52, 20 May 2010; and Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09, § 71, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 45066/17

  MESIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 25551/18

  TADIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 16140/15

  BEZANIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 6161/13

  UZELAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 36908/13

  STEFANAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 13451/15

  TRISTAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 40761/19

  BARTOLO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 73303/14

  NÉMETH v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 2953/14

  PANTALON v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 18415/20

  MINIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  MILACHIKJ v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 52204/14

  BEGOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 28186/19

  JASUITIS v. LITHUANIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 18419/23 (anhängig)

  TORZI v. ITALY
• EGMR - 3852/23 (anhängig)

  CASCETTA v. ITALY
• EGMR - 14566/21 (anhängig)

  PACILETTI v. ITALY
• EGMR - 24517/18 (anhängig)

  MURZAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2025 - 4760/17

  ARBE LOGISTICS BVBA c. BELGIQUE et 7 autres affaires
• EGMR, 28.05.2024 - 58721/16

  LAZOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 7834/12

  LOPAC v. CROATIA and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 32754/16

  LÁZARO LAPORTA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 36763/06

  PRIGALA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.09.2024 - 37977/23

  SOLANELLAS SOLANELLAS v. SPAIN