Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIMUNOVSKI v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 10, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 42550/08

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-A, and Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-II).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 42550/08

  Nevertheless, the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies requires only that an applicant make normal use of remedies which are effective, sufficient and accessible in respect of his Convention grievances (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004, and John Sammut and Visa Investments Limited v. Malta (dec.), no. 27023/03, 28 June 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  ULEMEK v. CROATIA and 5 other applications

  Where applicants have failed to comply with that requirement, the Court has declared their applications inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for instance, Šimunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011; Šebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, § 177, 28 June 2011; Miljak, cited above, §§ 36-39; Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 21, 3 April 2012, and Golubar v. Croatia, no. 21951/15, §§ 30-32, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  LONIC v. CROATIA

  However, only a complaint before the competent court entails judicial protection and is susceptible to a further appeal and subsequently a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 38 and 39 above; and Simunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011; Srbic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4464/09, 21 June 2011; Pesa, cited above, §§ 78-80, 8 April 2010; Sebalj, cited above, §§ 173-77; and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 35, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  [ENG]

  However, only a complaint to a competent sentence-execution judge entails judicial protection and is susceptible to a further appeal before a three-judge panel of a competent County Court and a constitutional complaint (see Simunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011, Srbic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4464/09, 21 June 2011, Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, §§ 78-80, 8 April 2010, and Sebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, §§ 173-177, 28 June 2011).

• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 51166/10

  [ENG]

  Against the above background, the Court concludes that the applicants should have, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, before bringing their application with the Court, presented their arguments before the national authorities and thus given them the opportunity of remedying their situation, and in particular before the Constitutional Court as the highest Court in Croatia (see Simunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 29597/10

  [ENG]

  However, only a complaint to a competent sentence-execution judge entails judicial protection and is susceptible to a further appeal with a three-judge panel of a competent County Court and a constitutional complaint (see Simunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011, Srbic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4464/09, 21 June 2011, Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, §§ 78-80, 8 April 2010, and Sebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, §§ 173-177, 28 June 2011).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 10697/15

  SRDOC v. CROATIA

  It follows that the complaints about the applicant's detention in Zagreb Prison between 15 October 2013 and 28 November 2014 have been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see also Šimunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 14303/11

  BUDIMIR v. CROATIA

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the applicant should, before lodging his application with the Court, have presented his arguments before the national courts, in particular the Constitutional Court as the highest court in Croatia, and thus given them the opportunity to remedy his situation (see Šimunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011, and Habulinec and Filipović, cited above, § 31).