Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 28.06.2016

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,5860
EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. März 2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,5860) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA ET AUTRES c. CROATIE

    Partiellement irrecevable (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Délai de six mois;Non-violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (Article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Biens) (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions) (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (1231)Zitiert selbst (50)

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    (a) in the context of determining the scope of a case referred to the Court by the former European Commission on Human Rights (see Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, §§ 20 and 39-40, Series A no. 11; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 112; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, §§ 28-29, Series A no. 172; Philis v. Greece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, §§ 55-56, Series A no. 209; and Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, §§ 45-50, Reports 1998-V) and, after the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, when determining the scope of a case before the Grand Chamber in the light of the Chamber's decision on (in)admissibility (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §§ 45 and 48-57, 17 September 2009);.

    Master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts, the Court is empowered to examine them, if it deems it necessary and if need be of its own motion, in the light of the Convention as a whole (see, inter alia, the judgment on the merits in the "Belgian linguistic case", 23 July 1968, § 1, Series A no. 6; De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 49, Series A no. 12; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; and Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 157, Series A no. 25).

  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The wording of Article 34 indicates that a "claim" or complaint in Convention terms comprises two elements, namely factual allegations (i.e. to the effect that the claimant is the "victim" of an act or omission - see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51) and the legal arguments underpinning them (i.e. that the said act or omission entailed a "violation by [a] Contracting Party of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto").

    Indeed, in Eckle v. Germany (15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51), for example, the Court defined as constitutive of a claim the facts representing the interference, i.e. the factual allegations to the effect that the claimant is the "victim of an act or omission" (see paragraph 110 of the judgment).

  • EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

    Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    (a) in the context of determining the scope of a case referred to the Court by the former European Commission on Human Rights (see Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, §§ 20 and 39-40, Series A no. 11; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 112; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, §§ 28-29, Series A no. 172; Philis v. Greece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, §§ 55-56, Series A no. 209; and Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, §§ 45-50, Reports 1998-V) and, after the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, when determining the scope of a case before the Grand Chamber in the light of the Chamber's decision on (in)admissibility (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §§ 45 and 48-57, 17 September 2009);.

    The Government did not even complain in that connection (compare Scoppola (no. 2) v. Italy [GC], no. 10249/03, § 56, 17 September 2009)[21].

  • EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

    HARKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The purpose of the rule enunciated in Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention is: (i) to ensure the finality of the Court's decisions and to prevent applicants from seeking, through the lodging of a fresh application, to appeal against previous judgments or decisions of the Court (see the Kafkaris decision, cited above, and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, ECHR 2017), and (ii) to avoid the situation where several international bodies would be simultaneously dealing with applications which are substantially the same, that is, a situation which would be incompatible with the spirit and the letter of the Convention, which seeks to avoid a plurality of international proceedings relating to the same cases (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 520, 20 September 2011).

    In the same vein one could reproach the Grand Chamber for relying in the instant judgment on, say, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, § 520, 20 September 2011), or on Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, § 91, ECHR 2016), or on Harkins v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, ECHR 2017), or on any of the numerous very recent judgments and decisions cited extensively in paragraph 115 and elsewhere in the judgment.

  • EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

    AZINAS c. CHYPRE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    In the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most notably in cases involving issues of exhaustion in substance, the Court has, along with the factual situation presented in the light of national law, placed emphasis on the Convention arguments relied upon at the national level (see, for example, Guzzardi, cited above, § 72; Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 200; B. v. France, 25 March 1992, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 232-C; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236; Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 306-B; Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, 15 November 1996, §§ 27-34, Reports 1996-V; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 33-39, ECHR 1999-I; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142-146, ECHR 2010; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 21-25, ECHR 2010; Association Les témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, §§ 25-30, 28 October 2010; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29426/08 and 29737/08, 10 December 2013).

    In the context of exhaustion of remedies the Court's case-law refers to "Convention arguments" not legal arguments in general (see, for example, Azinas v. Cyprus, no. 56679/00, § 38, 28 April 2004).

  • EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 6504/13

    STOJAKOVIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    For example, in the Stojaković case (see Stojaković v. Croatia (dec) [Committee], no. 6504/13, 12 January 2016), the Court had struck the application out of its list of cases because the applicants' representative had informed the Court that they had not complained about the lack of an effective investigation into the deaths of their relatives but about the civil proceedings in which they had sought damages for the deaths.

    [11] For example, in the Stojaković case (Stojaković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 6504/13, 1 January 2016) the applicants' representative explicitly stated that their complaint was not about the criminal investigation but about the civil proceedings.

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    This was acknowledged by the Court itself in the case of Marckx v. Belgium (13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31): "... in certain Contracting States having a constitutional court: their public law limits the retroactive effect of those decisions of that court that annul legislation".
  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, the "case" referred to the Grand Chamber is the application as it has been declared admissible (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 141, ECHR 2001-VII; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 109, ECHR 2007-IV; and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 91, ECHR 2016).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The Court reiterates in this connection that, even though no plea of inadmissibility concerning compliance with the six-month rule was made by the Government in their observations, it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see, for example, Sabri Güneş, cited above, §§ 28-31; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 71, 10 January 2012; and Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    (b) in other cases where the Court has applied the jura novit curia principle (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, §§ 2 and 53-63, Series A no. 39, Foti and Others, cited above, §§ 42-44; Guerra, cited above, § 44; Vasilopoulou v. Greece (dec.), no. 47541/99, 22 March 2001; Kornakovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 61005/00, 21 October 2004; Moisejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 64846/01, 21 October 2004; Põder and Others v. Estonia (dec.), no. 67723/01, ECHR 2005-VIII; Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34078/02, 29 April 2008; B.B. v. France, no. 5335/06, §§ 47-48 and 56, 17 December 2009; Mocny v. Poland (dec.), no. 47672/09, 30 November 2010; Tinner v. Switzerland, nos.
  • EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

    GUERRA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

    Budweiser-Streit

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

    POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EuGH, 14.12.1995 - C-430/93

    Van Schijndel / Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten

  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95
  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

    B. c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 14.11.1960 - 332/57
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
  • EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

    GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.05.2017 - C-122/16

    British Airways/ Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Kartelle - Zulässigkeit …

  • EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

    NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  • EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06

    PREVITI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87
  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

    ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

    [ENG]

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2004 - C-106/03

    Vedial / HABM

  • EGMR, 01.09.2005 - 290/03

    R. A. u.a. gegen Deutschland

  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

    [ENG]

  • EKMR, 06.07.1988 - 12015/86

    HILTON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 8916/05

    ASSOCIATION LES TÉMOINS DE JÉHOVAH CONTRE LA FRANCE

  • EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

    TRAPEZNIKOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 5335/06

    B.B. c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 59301/08

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 18766/04

    TSARTSIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 39544/05

    ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. CONTRE LA CROATIE

  • EKMR, 07.12.1994 - 18660/91

    BENGTSSON c. SUEDE

  • EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 45366/14

    MAJCAN v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 57567/00

    BULENA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  • EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 67723/01

    PÕDER ET AUTRES c. ESTONIE

  • EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20

    Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …

    The Court's assessment 278. The relevant principles of the Court's caselaw concerning the scope of the case before it may be summarised as follows (see, for instance, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018, and, most recently, Grosam v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 19750/13, § 88, 1 June 2023): "126.
  • EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 40575/10

    Claudia Pechstein scheitert mit Klage gegen den Sportgerichtshof Cas

    Als Kern der rechtlichen Würdigung der Tatsachen (Radomilja et autres gegen Croatie [GC], Nm. 37685/10 und 22768/12, Rdnrn. 113-115, 20.03.2018) hält der Gerichtshof es für angemessener, alle diese Beschwerden ausschließlich unter dem Gesichtspunkt von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 der Konvention zu prüfen, der in den in vorliegenden Fall einschlägigen Abschnitten lautet wie folgt:.
  • EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 215/19

    Diskriminierung: Deutschland hat Racial-Profiling-Vorwurf nicht genug geprüft

    The Court, having the power to decide on the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a complaint by examining it under Articles of the Convention that are different from those relied upon by the applicant (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018), considers that the applicant's complaint falls to be examined under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 37685/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,15657
EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 37685/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,15657)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.06.2016 - 37685/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,15657)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juni 2016 - 37685/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,15657)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15657) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (englisch)

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

    POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 37685/10
    By contrast, however, it seems to me that the Court cannot "create" a new complaint not invoked by the applicant (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172).
  • EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

    NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 37685/10
    Accordingly, the Court, has to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction of its own motion (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III; and Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, 29 June 1999).
  • EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

    ALDEGUER TOMAS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 37685/10
    For a recent instance, see the separate opinion of Judge Keller in Aldeguer Tomás v. Spain, no. 35214/09, 14 June 2016 (paragraph 3 of the opinion).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 36868/03

    DUPIN v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 37685/10
    The Court, having regard to its case-law (see Dupin v. Croatia (dec.), no. 36868/03, 7 July 2009 and the cases cited therein), finds that the present application, in so far as it concerns Mr Gašpar Perasović, is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 thereof.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht