Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MINDEK v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MINDEK v. CROATIA

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 6169/13
• EGMR, 23.10.2019 - 6169/13

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 12.10.1982 - 8588/79

  BRAMELID and MALMSTRÖM v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  This type of rule cannot in principle be considered contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 unless a person is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of property in favour of another (see Bramelid and Malmström v. Sweden, no. 8588/79 and 8589/79, Commission decision of 12 October 1982, DR 9, pp. 64 and 82, and Dabić v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 59995/00, 3 October 2001).".
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 54522/00

  Kotov v. Russia

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  More specifically, the State has an obligation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to provide the necessary assistance to a creditor in the enforcement of an award granted by a court (Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, § 90, 3 April 2012).
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01

  FUKLEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  Enforcement procedures are a means by which the State fulfils its positive obligation to protect the right to property in cases involving litigation between private individuals or companies (see Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 71186/01, § 91, 7 June 2005).

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  The State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if court decisions are not given in accordance with domestic law or if they are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  The Court reiterates that, whilst the use of offensive language in proceedings before it is undoubtedly inappropriate, an application may only be rejected as abusive in exceptional circumstances (see Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, 14 April 2009, § 56).
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 747/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  Under the case-law of the Croatian courts, the buyer became owner of the property only after the award decision had become final and the buyer had paid the purchase price (see, for example, Supreme Court judgment nos. Rev 228/08-2 of 9 October 2008, Rev 575/06-2 of 23 November 2006, and Rev 747/09-2 of 31 August 2011; and Pula County Court judgment no. Gž-1213/09-2 of 6 June 2011).
• KAG Aachen, 07.02.2006 - 35/05

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  The Obligations Act of 2006 (Official Gazette, nos. 35/05, 41/08 and 125/11), which entered into force on 1 January of that year, is the legislation governing contract and tort.
• EKMR, 08.09.1988 - 13021/87

  RUIZ MATEOS v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  The Court notes at the outset that... civil-law dispute[s] between private parties... do not themselves engage the responsibility of the State under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ruiz Mateos v. the United Kingdom, no. 13021/87, Commission decision of 8 September 1988, Decisions and Reports (DR) 57, pp.
• EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

  TORMALA and OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 7274/02

  ESKELINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  268 and 275; Skowronski v. Poland (dec.), no. 52595/99, 28 June 2001; Kranz v. Poland (dec.), no. 6214/02, 10 September 2002; Eskelinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 7274/02, 3 February 2004; and Tormala v. Finland (dec.), no. 41258/98, 16 March 2004).
• FG Hamburg, 25.01.2001 - V 57/96

  Isolierte Anfechtbarkeit der Aufhebung des Vorbehalts der Nachprüfung

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MINDEK CONTRE LA CROATIE

  Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MINDEK AGAINST v. CROATIA

  Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 6169/13
• EGMR, 23.10.2019 - 6169/13

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• KAG Freiburg, 19.06.2009 - 11/09

  Anspruch auf Freistellung und Kostenübernahme für eine beabsichtigte …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2019 - 6169/13

  11/09/2018.

  11/09/2018.

• RG, 30.05.1908 - I 30/08

  Förmlichkeiten des Protestes, durch den die Präsentation eines eigenen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2019 - 6169/13

  30/08/2016.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.10.2026 - 14424/19

  OSADCHYY v. UKRAINE

  Reiterating that that its jurisdiction to verify that domestic law has been correctly interpreted and applied is limited and that it is not its function to take the place of the national courts (see, for instance, Mindek v. Croatia, no. 6169/13, § 80, 30 August 2016), the Court considers that there is no basis for a finding that the reopened proceedings in the present case were flawed to the extent that their outcome could not be accepted (compare and contrast Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, §§ 97-98, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40669/16

  DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA

  In those circumstances, there is no reason to make any award in respect of pecuniary damage (see, mutatis mutandis, Mindek v. Croatia, no. 6169/13, § 92, 30 August 2016).
• EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 64886/19

  X v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  21825/93 and 23414/94, § 36, ECHR 2000-I; Bugajny and Others v. Poland (revision), no. 22531/05, § 26, 15 December 2009; and Mindek v. Croatia (revision), no. 6169/13, § 17, 11 September 2018).

• EGMR, 16.10.2025 - 29715/11

  NAMCHYL-OOL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Nor does the Court doubt that the erroneous indication of the applicant's patronymic had a decisive influence for its findings in respect of the present application (see, by contrast Mindek v. Croatia (revision), no. 6169/13, §§ 8-28, 11 September 2018).
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 71462/17

  KOCHERGIN v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court's task in the present case is to assess whether the domestic courts' adjudication of the dispute between V.N. and the applicant was given in accordance with domestic law and to ascertain that their relevant decisions were not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (compare, Mindek v. Croatia, no. 6169/13, § 78, 30 August 2016).
• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 35635/14

  MALAYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court's task in the present case is to assess whether the domestic courts' adjudication of the dispute between V.F. and the first applicant was given in accordance with domestic law and to ascertain that their relevant decisions were not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (compare, Mindek v. Croatia, no. 6169/13, § 78, 30 August 2016).