Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CROATIAN RADIO-TELEVISION v. CROATIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CROATIAN RADIO-TELEVISION v. CROATIA and 20 other applications

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• LG Düsseldorf, 13.08.2013 - 4a O 23/12

  Schadensersatzanspruch hinsichtlich Verletzung des Patents mit der Bezeichnung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  23/12/2019.

  23/12/2019.

  23/12/2019.

• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  The judge in question referred in addition to Radio France and Others v. France ((dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)) and Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006), where the Court had held that those public broadcasting organisations were non-governmental organisations within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention because the Austrian and French States had devised a legislative framework designed to guarantee their editorial independence and institutional autonomy.

  As regards the applicant institution's argument that the present cases were not in any way different from Radio France and Others (v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); see paragraphs 94 and 97 below), the Government replied that in that case the Court's conclusion that the applicant was a non-governmental organisation had been based on the finding that it did not enjoy any powers beyond those conferred by ordinary law and that it was subject to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, and not administrative courts.

  The majority rely on the existing case law concerning public radio and television companies (Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006; MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, 7 December 2010; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012; and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, 22 December 2020).

• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 35841/02

  ÖSTERREICHISCHER RUNDFUNK v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  The judge in question referred in addition to Radio France and Others v. France ((dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)) and Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006), where the Court had held that those public broadcasting organisations were non-governmental organisations within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention because the Austrian and French States had devised a legislative framework designed to guarantee their editorial independence and institutional autonomy.

  Relying on the Court's criteria developed in Radio France and Others (cited above), Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006) and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey (no. 40998/98, ECHR 2007-V), the applicant institution argued that it had to be viewed as a non-governmental organisation because (a) it was granted editorial independence and institutional autonomy by the relevant legislation (see paragraph 62 above); (b) it had not been established to carry out public-administration tasks; (c) it provided a public service (see paragraph 48 above) rather than exercised any governmental powers; (d) it operated in a sector open to market competition and did not have a broadcasting monopoly; (e) it was under the supervision of the Electronic Media Council, an independent authority (see paragraph 66 above); and (f) ordinary courts had jurisdiction to decide on its rights and obligations.

  The majority rely on the existing case law concerning public radio and television companies (Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006; MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, 7 December 2010; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012; and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, 22 December 2020).

• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 41723/14

  SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT ET PUBLISUISSE SA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  Applying these criteria (see paragraphs 100-101 above) to public broadcasting organisations, the Court has so far always held that they had locus standi to lodge an individual application (see Radio France and Others, cited above, § 26; Österreichischer Rundfunk, cited above, §§ 46-53; MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, §§ 18-19, 7 December 2010; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012; and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, §§ 46-48, 22 December 2020).

  The majority rely on the existing case law concerning public radio and television companies (Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, no. 35841/02, 7 December 2006; MacKay and BBC Scotland v. the United Kingdom, no. 10734/05, 7 December 2010; Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft SRG v. Switzerland, no. 34124/06, 21 June 2012; and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland, no. 41723/14, 22 December 2020).

• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  He relied on the Court's judgments in the cases of A.K. and L. v. Croatia (no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013) and Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 and, while those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013, and Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  He relied on the Court's judgments in the cases of A.K. and L. v. Croatia (no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013) and Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 and, while those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013, and Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 57691/09

  JKP VODOVOD KRALJEVO v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  57691/09 and 19719/10, 16 October 2018) and on the decision of the former European Commission of Human Rights in the case of RENFE v. Spain (no. 35216/97, Commission decision of 8 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-B, p. 179).

  57691/09 and 19719/10, 16 October 2018) and of the European Commission in the case of Spanish Railways - RENFE v. Spain (no. 35216/97, Commission decision of 8 September 1997, DR 90-B) is also relevant.

• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 35216/97

  RENFE contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  57691/09 and 19719/10, 16 October 2018) and on the decision of the former European Commission of Human Rights in the case of RENFE v. Spain (no. 35216/97, Commission decision of 8 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-B, p. 179).

  57691/09 and 19719/10, 16 October 2018) and of the European Commission in the case of Spanish Railways - RENFE v. Spain (no. 35216/97, Commission decision of 8 September 1997, DR 90-B) is also relevant.

• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, and Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 124, 20 March 2018), the Court finds that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  That is so because the issue of locus standi is the matter that goes to the Court's jurisdiction ratione personae which the Court is, like any other question of its jurisdiction, obliged to examine of its own motion (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III, and Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA, cited above, § 43).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 18.02.2005 - 12/02
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 34796/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 65101/16

  ARROZPIDE SARASOLA v. SPAIN and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42162/02

  SCHWARZKOPF ET TAUSSIK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 19.12.2018 - 54155/16
• KAG Aachen, 07.02.2006 - 35/05
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 23244/16

  JANKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 24922/12

  ZASTAVA IT TURS v. SERBIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2026 - 20538/24

  BUHIN v. CROATIA

  Rn. 73 The Court further notes that applicant's case was examined on the merits at two levels of court with full jurisdiction (see Croatian Radio-Television v. Croatia, nos. 52132/19 and 19 others, § 165, 2 March 2023, and contrast with Gil Sanjuan v. Spain, no. 48297/15, § 45, 26 May 2020), and finds no other elements to suggest that in declaring the applicant's constitutional complaint inadmissible the Constitutional Court disproportionately restricted her right of access to court (see Zelenika, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 39819/16

  ? ABANOVIC v. SERBIA and 24 other applications

  Rn. 111 The Court recalls that it has examined a situation where inconsistent appellate decisions affected numerous individuals; the discrepancies lasted more than three years but were eventually harmonised by a unifying opinion of the supreme court (see Croatian Radio-Television v. Croatia, nos. 52132/19 and 19 others, §§ 147 and 149-53, 2 March 2023).
• EGMR, 21.05.2024 - 39801/23

  ZELENIKA v. CROATIA

  Rn. 46 In that regard, the Court first reiterates that it is not its task to question the interpretation by the Constitutional Court of the admissibility criteria for lodging constitutional complaints, which is a matter in the sole domain of that court, but rather to ascertain whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention, it being understood that the conditions for the admissibility of constitutional complaints may be stricter than for ordinary appeals (see, for example, Croatian Radio-Television v. Croatia, nos. 52132/19 and 19 others, § 164, 2 March 2023, and the cases cited therein).

• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 5584/24

  JASARI v. CROATIA

  Its task is rather to ascertain whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention, it being understood that the conditions for the admissibility of constitutional complaints may be stricter than for ordinary appeals (see, for example, Croatian Radio-Television v. Croatia, nos. 52132/19 and 19 others, § 164, 2 March 2023, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 37364/10

  BOSKOCEVIC v. SERBIA

  Rn. 59 The present case must be distinguished from R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia (nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, 15 January 2008), and thousands of other cases concerning the State's liability for the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions against socially owned companies, where the Court held that socially owned companies, at different stages of the privatisation process, did not enjoy "sufficient institutional and operational independence from the State" to absolve the latter from its responsibility under the Convention (see R. Kačapor and Others, cited above, § 98, and as concerns the status of socially owned companies in Serbia, §§ 71-76, and, contrast, Croatian Radio-Television v. Croatia, nos. 52132/19 and 19 others, § 105 in fine, 2 March 2023).
• EGMR, 18.11.2025 - 13722/22

  YAZICI ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  Sa tâche consiste plutôt à vérifier si les effets de cette interprétation sont compatibles avec la Convention, étant entendu que les conditions de recevabilité des recours constitutionnels peuvent être plus strictes que celles des recours ordinaires (voir, entre autres, Radio-télévision croate c. Croatie, nos 52132/19 et 19 autres, § 164, 2 mars 2023).
• EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 3627/21

  CROATIAN RADIO-TELEVISION v. CROATIA

  It held that that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of divergent case-law and declared inadmissible the complaint concerning access to the Constitutional Court (see Croatian Radio-Television v. Croatia, nos. 52132/19 and 19 others, §§ 122-66, 2 March 2023).
• EGMR, 09.07.2024 - 15646/22

  CASSA NAZIONALE DI PREVIDENZA E ASSISTENZA FORENSE v. ITALY and 4 other …

  Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the applicant entity discharges governmental functions by offering a public service to a specific group of professionals under governmental control (see Croatian Radio-Television v. Croatia, nos. 52132/19 and 19 others, § 99, 2 March 2023).