Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,4212) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (8) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80
GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09
The Court must further examine whether that interference was justified in terms of Article 8 § 2, that is, whether it was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 48, Series A no. 109). - EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99
HORVAT v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09
As to whether respect for the human rights safeguarded by the Convention and its Protocols requires the examination of the merits of the complaint, the Court observes that the issue of the length of civil proceedings in Croatia has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, 17 July 2008). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09
As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-X).
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 29182/03
KOZLICA v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09
As to whether respect for the human rights safeguarded by the Convention and its Protocols requires the examination of the merits of the complaint, the Court observes that the issue of the length of civil proceedings in Croatia has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, 17 July 2008). - EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 22014/04
KAIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09
As to whether respect for the human rights safeguarded by the Convention and its Protocols requires the examination of the merits of the complaint, the Court observes that the issue of the length of civil proceedings in Croatia has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, ECHR 2001-VIII; Kozlica v. Croatia, no. 29182/03, 2 November 2006; and Kaic and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, 17 July 2008). - EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 46934/99
STRUNJAK ET AUTRES c. CROATIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09
The Court reiterates that it had an opportunity to examine similar complaints in the Strunjak and Soric cases (see Strunjak and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 46934/99, ECHR 2000-X, and Soric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43447/98, 16 March 2000) and that it declared them inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. - EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 43447/98
SORIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09
The Court reiterates that it had an opportunity to examine similar complaints in the Strunjak and Soric cases (see Strunjak and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 46934/99, ECHR 2000-X, and Soric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43447/98, 16 March 2000) and that it declared them inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. - EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00
Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 54388/09
In examining whether that interference with the applicant's right to respect for her home was justified, the Court is first required to determine whether it can be regarded as lawful for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, given that the decision occasioning it must comply with the relevant domestic law (see Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 90, ECHR 2006-XI).
- EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 33696/11
Steuerhinterziehung: Steuer-CDs dürfen für Strafverfolgung genutzt werden
In the case of Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria (no. 12739/05, § 46, 8 March 2011), the Court concluded as follows: "It is primarily for the national courts to interpret and apply domestic law ... While the Court should exercise a certain power of review in this matter, since failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of Article 8, the scope of its task is subject to limits inherent in the subsidiary nature of the Convention, and it cannot question the way in which the domestic courts have interpreted and applied national law, except in cases of flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness" (see Kruslin v. France , 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176 A; Huvig v. France , 24 April 1990, § 28, Series A no. 176 B; and, mutatis mutandis , Galovic v. Croatia , no. 54388/09 (dec.), 5 March 2013, §§ 58-61). - EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 52240/07
SCHRADE v. GEORGIA
In such cases, the pure financial loss or the amount of the initial claim involved cannot be taken as the sole indication of a "significant disadvantage", and the applicant's subjective perceptions and what was objectively at stake for him ought to be assessed rather in a much more general way, by having regard to all particular circumstances of the given case (see Havelka v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 7332/10, ECHR 20 September 2011; Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, §§ 21 and 23; 13 March 2012; and Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, §§ 71-73, 5 March 2013).It is the "case" understood in that way that has to be "duly considered by a domestic tribunal" for the purposes of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see also, amongst many others Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, § 76, 5 March 2013; and also Cecchetti v. San Marino (dec.), no. 40174/08, §§ 39-45, 9 April 2013).
- EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33636/09
MAGOMEDOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
Enfin, quant au temps, plus ou moins long, mis par les services de l'État pour introduire une demande de relevé de forclusion et des appels tardifs, la Cour considère que le délai en cause a été en partie compensé par le fait que les requérants avaient continué à toucher pendant toute cette période les montants dus calculés selon la méthode indiquée par les jugements annulés, qui leur était favorable (voir, mutatis mutandis, Galovic c. Croatie (déc.), no 54388/09, § 74, 15 janvier 2013).
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 5425/10
LA POSTA c. ITALIE
La Cour considère que la longueur de la procédure, conséquence du comportement du requérant qui n'a pas honoré sa dette de manière spontanée, a permis à ce dernier de conserver la possession de son patrimoine et de retarder le paiement envers ses créanciers, ce qui a tout au moins compensé ou particulièrement réduit le préjudice découlant normalement de la durée excessive de la procédure (voir, mutatis mutandis, Gagliano Giorgi c. Italie, no 23563/07, §§ 57-58, CEDH (extraits), et Galovic c. Croatie, (déc.), no 54388/09, §§ 71-74, 5 mars 2013). - EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 11514/18
TRUMBIC v. CROATIA
It was not disputed between the parties that the judgment ordering the applicant to vacate the attic constituted an interference with her right to respect for her home (compare Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, § 56, 5 March 2013). - EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 47395/09
BUKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
Moreover, they were not in any way compensated for it (see by contrast, Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, § 74, 5 March 2013). - EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 33160/17
LIPSIC v. SLOVAKIA
This advantageous outcome at the very least reduced the damage otherwise suffered by the applicant due to his inability to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 54388/09, § 74, 5 March 2013). - EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 37285/12
KHUBIYEV v. RUSSIA
Lastly, as regards the time taken by the authorities to submit a request for extension of the time-limits for appeal, the Court considers that the period in question was partly offset by the fact that the applicant had continued to receive throughout the period the amounts due in accordance with the method indicated in the annulled judgment which was favorable to him (see, mutatis mutandis, Galovic v. Croatia (dec.), No. 54388/09, § 74, 15 January 2013).