Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MILJENKO KOVAC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 30426/03

  BATINOVIC AND POINT-TRADE, D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 39739/06

  In this connection they noted that already in the Batinovic case (see Batinovic and Point Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 30426/03, 10 July 2007), the Court had referred to a judgment of the High Commercial Court of 21 December 2004 in which that court had granted a claim by a shareholder of the Croatia banka d.d. whose shares had been cancelled by the disputed Government's Decision of 23 September 1999.

  The Court notes at the outset that the present case is similar to that of Batinovic and Point Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 30426/03, 10 July 2007).

• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 39739/06

  The Court recalls in this connection that a mere doubt as to the prospect of success of a remedy is not sufficient to exempt an applicant from submitting a complaint to the competent authority (see Elsanova v. Russia (dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005).
• LG Karlsruhe, 03.09.1991 - O 73/91

  Wer darf die Bezeichnung "Ingenieurbüro für Architektur" verwenden?

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 39739/06

  The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91, 111/93, 3/94, 7/96, 91/96, 112/99 and 88/01), read as follows:.
• RG, 04.03.1901 - 88/01

  Gestattet das freiwillige Abstehen auch nur einer Partei vom Zweikampfe die …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 39739/06

  The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette nos. 53/91, 73/91, 111/93, 3/94, 7/96, 91/96, 112/99 and 88/01), read as follows:.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  PROJECT-TRADE D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  As regards the Government's inadmissibility objection (see paragraphs 39-41 above), the Court observes that it has already had the opportunity to examine issues related to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in cases brought by former shareholders of Croatia Bank complaining that they had been deprived of their property by the Government Decision of 23 September 1999 (see paragraph 8 above) in that their shares had been revoked and cancelled without good reason or compensation (see Batinović and Point Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 30426/03, 10 July 2007, and Miljenko Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 39739/06, 15 January 2009).

  Moreover, that decision was adopted in the case of Miljenko Kovač, who then, within six month of its adoption, i.e. on 7 September 2006, 1odged his application with the Court (see Miljenko Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 39739/06, 15 January 2009).

• EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 46998/15

  SCOTT BADER D.O.O. v. CROATIA and 1 other application

  The first applicant contended that it had instituted proceedings against the bank and the DAB on the basis of the Court's findings in Batinović and Point Trade, d.o.o. v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 30426/03, 10 July 2007) and Miljenko Kovač v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 39739/06, 15 January 2009).