Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,60074
EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,60074)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.10.2016 - 65020/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,60074)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Oktober 2016 - 65020/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,60074)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,60074) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 463/03

    KORENJAK v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13
    Particular attention should therefore be paid by the national authorities to ensure that the "Erased" Compensation Act is applied in a manner that is in conformity with the Convention standards as far as both decisions of the administrative authorities and the future case-law of the Slovenian judiciary are concerned (see, mutatis mutandis, Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 463/03, § 74, 15 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 25516/12

    BIZJAK v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13
    Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V, and Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 39, 8 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 3485/02

    ASSOCIATION OF REAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN LÓDZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13
    The pilot-judgment procedure is primarily designed to assist the Contracting States in fulfilling their role in the Convention system by resolving problems at the national level, thereby securing to the persons concerned their Convention rights and freedoms, as required by Article 1 of the Convention, and offering to them more rapid redress but also, at the same time, making it unnecessary for the Court to adjudicate on large numbers of applications similar in substance which it would otherwise have to take to judgment (see Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (merits) [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 231-234, ECHR 2006-VIII; Wolkenberg and Others, decision cited above, § 34; and The Association of Real Property Owners in Lódź v. Poland (dec.) no. 3485/02, § 43, ECHR 2011-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 50425/99

    E.G. c. POLOGNE ET 175 AUTRES AFFAIRES DE LA RIVIÈRE BOUG

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13
    Indeed, the Court's task, as defined by Article 19 - that is to "ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto" - is not necessarily best achieved by repeating the same findings in a large series of cases (see Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 62, 3 November 2009; see also, by analogy, E.G. and 175 Other Bug River applications v. Poland (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 27, ECHR 2008-IV (extracts); and, mutatis mutandis, Kuric and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 134).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 50003/99

    WOLKENBERG AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13
    In consequence, the Court, applying the pilot-judgment procedure within the meaning of Rule 61 of the Rules of Court in the individual applicants" case, not only recognised the Convention violation in respect of all actual and potential applicants who found themselves in a similar situation but also made clear that general measures at the national level were called for in the execution of the judgment and that those measures should take into account the other persons affected and remedy the systemic defect underlying the Court's finding of a violation (see Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.) no. 50003/99, §§ 31-33, ECHR 2007-XIV, and Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 34, ECHR 2005-IX).
  • EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17

    DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY

    Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with their own legal system and traditions and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V; Kuric and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 141, ECHR 2014; Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, § 39, 8 July 2014; Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016; and Hodzic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 13, 4 April 2017).
  • EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

    WALESA v. POLAND

    It is inherent in the pilot-judgment procedure that the Court's assessment of the situation complained of in a "pilot" case necessarily extends beyond the sole interests of the individual applicant and requires it to examine the case before it also from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interests of other already or potentially affected persons (see Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 238; Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 50003/99, § 73, 4 December 2007; Association of Real Property Owners in Lód?º and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 3485/02, §§ 86-87, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Anastasov and Others Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, §§ 94-96, 18 October 2016; and Burmych and Others, cited above, § 159).
  • EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 53491/10

    ZALUSKA, ROGALSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    60041/08 and 60054/08, § 111, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 413, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Kuric and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 138 ECHR 2014; Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.) no. 65020/13, 18 October 2016, § 90).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 29026/06

    BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

    In a completely different case concerning the adequacy of compensation for the "erased", the Court also accepted as reasonable and proportionate "the amounts of financial compensation chosen by the domestic authorities, ranging between approximately 20% and 60% of the Grand Chamber's individual award in the [Kuric and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2014-I] pilot case" (see Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 72, 18 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

    J.B. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

    Where a State has taken a significant step by introducing a compensatory remedy, the Court must leave a wider margin of appreciation to the State to allow it to organise the remedy in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and consonant with the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V; Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 27, 14 November 2017; and, in the context of a case raising an issue under Article 8, Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016).
  • EGMR - 17268/23 (anhängig)

    MIHAJLOVIC v. SLOVENIA

    In view of the reasons for the dismissal of his claim concerning pecuniary damage, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec), no. 65020/13, 18 October 2016, and Kuric and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, §§ 108-109, ECHR 2014)?.
  • EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 54421/21

    SZAXON v. HUNGARY

    Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with their own legal system and traditions and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned - even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V; Xynos v. Greece, no. 30226/09, § 41, 9 October 2014 and, mutatis mutandis, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 141, ECHR 2014; Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016;and Hod?¾ic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 3461/08, § 13, 4 April 2017).
  • EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 3461/08

    HODZIC v. SLOVENIA

    The Court has held on a number of occasions that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, a wider margin of appreciation should be left to the domestic authorities in respect of the implementation of a pilot judgment (see Kuric and Others v. Slovenia (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 26828/06, § 141, ECHR 2014, Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016, and the authorities cited therein; see also Alisic and Others, cited above, §§ 106-107).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht