Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZRILIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Zrilic v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11

  Whether or not a particular premises constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see, amongst many others, Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, §§ 52-54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; and Bjedov, cited above, § 57).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11

  The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, § 57), is satisfied that the national courts" decisions had a basis in the relevant domestic law.
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 66746/01

  CONNORS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11

  While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment of necessity, the final evaluation as to whether the reasons cited for the interference are relevant and sufficient remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, § 81, 27 May 2004, and Buckley, cited above, § 74).

• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11

  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, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11

  To be effective, a remedy must be capable of resolving directly the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 28261/06

  COSIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11

  In its decision no. U-III-46/2007 of 22 December 2010 the Constitutional Court, referring to the Court's case-law in Ćosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009, examined an appellant's complaint concerning her eviction from a flat, under the right to home provided in Article 34 § 1 of the Constitution, although the appellant had not cited that provision.
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 31360/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11

  Therefore the Court considers that, by complaining in substance about the effects of the partition on her right to respect for her home and peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, the applicant made normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, before bringing the same complaints before the Court (see, inter alia, Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  GUBERINA v. CROATIA

  Accordingly, the Court has no reason to doubt the applicant's proper use of remedies before the administrative and judicial authorities (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 52, 24 July 2008; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 48, 29 May 2012; and Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, § 49, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 68453/13

  PAJIC v. CROATIA

  In any case, the Court notes, contrary to what the Government have asserted, that the Constitutional Court did not declare the applicant's constitutional complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as it was its practice in other cases concerning discrimination complaints where, according to it, the appellants had not properly exhausted remedies before the lower domestic authorities (see paragraph 26 above; and compare Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 48, 29 May 2012; and Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, § 49, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 33602/17

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA

  In several cases against Croatia the Court has previously found that applicants had properly exhausted domestic remedies by raising the same complaints as those raised before the Court throughout the domestic proceedings, and that that was the normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012; Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, §§ 46-48, 3 October 2013; Horvatić v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, § 70, 17 October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014).

• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15

  RINGWALD v. CROATIA and 1 application

  In several cases concerning Croatia the Court has already considered that applicants had properly exhausted domestic remedies by raising the same complaints they raised before the Court throughout the domestic proceedings, and that that was the normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tarbuk v. Croatia, no. 31360/10, § 32, 11 December 2012; Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, §§ 46-48, 3 October 2013; Horvatić v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, § 70, 17 October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 30782/16

  SIMONOVA v. BULGARIA

  It is true that the applicant did not elaborate on the point, but it seems unlikely that her doing so would have led that court to engage in such analysis, since under the Supreme Administrative Court's case-law at the time, such issues had no bearing on the lawfulness of a demolition order (see the judgments cited in Ivanova and Cherkezov, §§ 26-27, and in Aydarov and Others, § 42, both cited above, and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, § 69, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 51755/10

  SIDLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  In particular, although the applicant made it clear that he had not had a home following the unlawful sale of his apartment, and that the amount of damages which he claimed was intended to cover the purchase of a new comparable apartment (see paragraph 10 above), it does not appear that the Supreme Court took any account of the applicant's ability to obtain a new home (see, mutatis mutandis, Rousk v. Sweden, no. 27183/04, § 140, 25 July 2013; compare and contrast Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, § 69, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 18551/17

  GUCIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Therefore, in a number of cases against Croatia the Court has held that applicants had properly exhausted domestic remedies by raising throughout the domestic proceedings the same complaints they subsequently raised before the Court, and that that was the normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tarbuk, cited above, § 32; Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, §§ 46-48, 3 October 2013; Horvatić v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, § 70, 17 October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 18532/12

  LESTEK v. CROATIA

  In several cases concerning Croatia the Court has already considered that applicants had properly exhausted domestic remedies by raising the same complaints they raised before the Court throughout the domestic proceedings, and that that was the normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tarbuk, cited above, § 32; Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, §§ 46-48, 3 October 2013; Horvatić v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, § 70, 17 October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 79580/12

  BOSANAC v. CROATIA

  In several cases concerning Croatia the Court has already considered that applicants had properly exhausted domestic remedies by raising the same complaints they raised before the Court throughout the domestic proceedings, and that that was the normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tarbuk, cited above, § 32; Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, §§ 46-48, 3 October 2013; Horvatić v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, § 70, 17 October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 50000/12

  PETEK v. CROATIA

  In several cases concerning Croatia the Court has already considered that applicants had properly exhausted domestic remedies by raising the same complaints they raised before the Court throughout the domestic proceedings, and that that was the normal use of the domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tarbuk, cited above, § 32; Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, §§ 46-48, 3 October 2013; Horvatić v. Croatia, no. 36044/09, § 70, 17 October 2013; and Marić v. Croatia, no. 50132/12, § 53, 12 June 2014).