Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DABIC v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DABIC v. CROATIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 49001/14

  In such cases the actual damage sustained should not be more extensive than that which is inevitable, if it is to be compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 33, Series A no. 281 A; Jucys v. Lithuania, no. 5457/03, § 36, 8 January 2008, and Tendam v. Spain, no. 25720/05, § 50, 13 July 2010).

• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 29525/15

  PERO MARIC v. CROATIA

  The other relevant domestic law as well as the relevant international and the Council of Europe instruments are set out in Dabic v. Croatia (no. 49001/14, §§ 25-29 and 31-32, 18 March 2021).

  Thus, when seizing property, the authorities must not only take the reasonable measures necessary for its preservation, but domestic legislation must also provide for the possibility of obtaining compensation for the damage resulting from the failure to keep such property in relatively good condition (see Dabic, v. Croatia, no. 49001/14, § 55 18 March 2021 and the cases cited therein).

• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 25174/18

  HUP - ZAGREB D.D. v. CROATIA

  "Having regard to the Court's judgment in the case of Dabic v. Croatia, no. 49001/14, 18 March 2021, and in view of the possibility provided by the Civil Procedure Act to seek reopening of the civil proceedings on the basis of the Court's strike-out decision, I declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, that the Government of the Republic of Croatia:.

  The Court reiterates that in cases similar to the present one it found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the breach of the State's positive obligations which required the domestic courts to examine the substance of the applicants' claims for compensation, rather than dismissing them by categorically excluding any liability of the State for the damage inflicted by third persons placed temporarily in the applicants' properties sequestered by the State (see Dabic v. Croatia, no. 49001/14, §§ 47-60, 18 March 2021; and Pero Maric v. Croatia [Committee], no. 29525/15, §§ 31-40, 17 March 2022).

• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  En conséquence, il ne suffit pas que les autorités prennent les mesures raisonnables nécessaires à la conservation des biens saisis ; encore faut-il que la législation interne prévoie la possibilité d'intenter contre l'État une procédure tendant à la réparation des préjudices résultant du défaut de conservation de ces biens dans un état correct (voir Dabic c. Croatie, no 49001/14, § 55, 18 mars 2021, et les références qui s'y trouvent citées).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 3269/18

  SCI LE CHÂTEAU DU FRANCPORT c. FRANCE

  Encore faut-il que cette procédure soit effective, pour permettre au propriétaire de défendre sa cause (Tendam, précité, § 51, et Dabic c. Croatie, no 49001/14, § 55, 18 mars 2021).
• EGMR - 4711/20 (anhängig)

  TISHKINA v. BULGARIA

  17423/05 and 5 others, § 213, 28 February 2012, and Dabic v. Croatia, no. 49001/14, §§ 50-52, 18 March 2021)?.
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 22781/10

  BALACCI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle note que, dans les affaires de ce type, la saisie effective des biens par les autorités ne posait pas question (comparer avec Begu c. Roumanie, no 20448/02, §§ 159-63, 15 mars 2011, 000 KD-Konsalting c. Russie, no 54184/11, §§ 54-59, 29 mai 2018, et Dabic c. Croatie, no 49001/14, §§ 54-59, 18 mars 2021).