Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SKOKANDIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 43714/02

  As regards the second applicant, the Court first reiterates that for a remedy to be effective it must, inter alia, provide relief rapidly enough to avoid any irreparable harm (see, notably, Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 43714/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], cited above, § 68; and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 39380/13

  VRTAR v. CROATIA

  An applicant should also be awarded an amount in respect of stages of the proceedings that may not have been taken into account by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Cocchiarella, cited above, §§ 139-141, ECHR 2006-V; Jakupovic v. Croatia, no. 12419/04, § 33, 31 July 2007; Skokandic v. Croatia, no. 43714/02, § 59, 31 July 2007; Husic v. Croatia, no. 14878/04, § 31, 25 October 2007; and Letica v. Croatia, no. 27846/05, § 34, 18 October 2007).
• EGMR - 58236/21 (anhängig)

  BLT ENERJI ELEKTRIK ENERJISI TOPTAN SATI?ž SAN. VE TIC. A.S. v. CROATIA

  Was the applicant company's removal from the list of shareholders of Geoen in the register of commercial companies contrary to the interim measure of 7 September 2020? If so, was that removal and the subsequent lifting of that interim measure on 21 February 2021 contrary to the applicant company's right to have a domestic decision in its favour enforced, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 65-70, ECHR 2009), or to its right to an effective remedy, guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Skokandic v. Croatia, no. 43714/02, § 49, 31 July 2007, and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, § 40, 17 July 2008)?.