Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BREZEC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Brezec v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  PAULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning her right to respect for her home (see, by way of comparison, Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 25 and 26, 22 October 2009; and Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, §§ 40 and 41, 21 June 2011).

  The decision-making process leading to the measure of interference was in such circumstances not fair and did no afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the applicant by Article 8 (see, by way of comparison, Ćosic, cited above; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Orlic, cited above; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012).

• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  The Court reiterates that whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process involved in measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-XII; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007; V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 141, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 219, 14 February 2012).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 31965/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  The Court reiterates that whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process involved in measures of interference must be fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-XII; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007; V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 141, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Hardy and Maile v. the United Kingdom, no. 31965/07, § 219, 14 February 2012).

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  In this connection the Court first reiterates that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law since the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 46, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  Whether or not a particular premise constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, DR 13, p. 40; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, § 57), is thus satisfied that the national courts" decisions ordering the applicant's eviction were in accordance with domestic law (see Ćosic, cited above, § 19).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 28261/06

  COSIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  Further, the Court has held in Ćosic v. Croatia (no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009):.
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 77116/01

  BAYBORA and OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  Finally, it should ensure the possibility of ascertaining the facts of the case before the chance to do so fades away, making the fair examination of the question at issue next to impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205, and Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002).
• EKMR, 07.05.1985 - 10626/83

  KELLY v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  Finally, it should ensure the possibility of ascertaining the facts of the case before the chance to do so fades away, making the fair examination of the question at issue next to impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205, and Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002).
• EKMR, 08.02.1978 - 7456/76

  WIGGINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  Whether or not a particular premise constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, DR 13, p. 40; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 7205/02

  STANKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 14294/04

  KIPRITCI c. TURQUIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  An analogy may also be drawn with cases concerning evictions from properties previously owned by the applicants but lost by them as a result of civil proceedings brought by a private person, civil proceedings brought by a public body, or tax enforcement proceedings (see, respectively, Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, 16 July 2009 (proceedings brought by a creditor); Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013 (proceedings brought by the true owner of the premises); Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011 (proceedings brought by a municipal body); and Rousk v. Sweden, no. 27183/04, 25 July 2013 (tax enforcement proceedings)).
• EGMR, 23.03.2021 - 36366/14

  GHAILAN AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

  Whether or not particular premises constitute a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, specifically the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see, inter alia, Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 35, 18 July 2013; Winterstein and Others, cited above, § 141; Hirtu and Others v. France, no. 24720/13, § 65, 14 May 2020, and Kaminskas v. Lithuania, no. 44817/18, §§ 42-44, 4 August 2020).

  However, if an applicant wishes to raise an Article 8 defence to prevent eviction or - as in the instant case - the demolition of his or her home, it is for him or her to do so and then for a court to uphold or dismiss the claim (see Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 46, 18 July 2013).

• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 59660/09

  CHORNENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that regardless of whether the applicants' occupancy of the Corporation's hostel was in accordance with the law, their links with the disputed premises were sufficiently strong and continuous so as to attract the applicability of Article 8 (see Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine, no. 27427/02 (dec.), § 53, 11 December 2012, with further references and Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, §§ 35-36, 18 July 2013).

  It considers that, notwithstanding that the eviction order in the present case was taken in favour of a privately incorporated entity, its issuance constituted State action amounting to an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their home (see, for instance, Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, §§ 37-40, 18 July 2013, and Vrzić v. Croatia, no. 43777/13, § 59, 12 July 2016).

• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 43777/13

  VRZIC v. CROATIA

  In several cases against Croatia the Court has found a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their home on the grounds that the national courts had not carried out the proportionality test when eviction orders had been issued (see, for example, Ćosić, cited above; Paulić v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Orlić v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, 21 June 2011; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012; and Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 15711/13

  STOLYAROVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that once an eviction order has been issued it amounts to an interference with the right to respect for home, irrespective of whether it has yet been carried out (see Ćosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, § 18, 15 January 2009, and Gladysheva, cited above, § 91), and irrespective of whether one owns other accommodation (see Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 40, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 04.08.2020 - 44817/18

  KAMINSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Moreover, there is no indication that the authorities took any action which may have led the applicant to believe that the construction was lawful or that he would be able to legalise it ex post facto (compare and contrast Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 48, 18 July 2013, and Tumeliai v. Lithuania, no. 25545/14, § 78, 9 January 2018).
• EGMR, 15.01.2026 - 13278/20

  BILI?ƒSKI v. POLAND

  The Court previously held that the date of the postmark recording on which day the application was sent is treated as the date of the application, and not the date of receipt stamped on the application (see, for example, Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 29, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 40429/14

  BOSAK v. CROATIA and 1 other application

  It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention refers to the rules of that law, since the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (see Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 42, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 6142/16

  CALDARAR AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  30391/18 and 30416/18, § 91, 8 March 2022); for between five and thirty years (see Winterstein and Others, cited above, § 141); for approximately six years (see Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 8, 11 and 56, 21 April 2016); or for several decades (see Yordanova and Others, cited above, § 102, and Brežec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 36, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11

  VALCHEV v. BULGARIA and 3 ohter applications

  According to the Court's well-established case-law under that provision in relation to first communications dispatched by post, as a rule the date of introduction was the date on which the first communication from the applicant had been posted, not the date on which it had been received at the Court (see Korkmaz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42589/98, 5 September 2002; Kipritçi v. Turkey, no. 14294/04, § 18, 3 June 2008; Perusko v. Croatia, no. 36998/09, § 35, 15 January 2013; and Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 29, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74936/12

  PETOLAS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 37857/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24546/09

  ZAHI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 28704/11

  APOSTOLOVSKI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA and 15 other applications
• EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11

  SATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 64855/11

  MATELJAN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 60223/09

  GUSTOVARAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 27994/19

  MUQISHTA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 25723/20

  BOLSHAKOV AND GILANI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 42353/13

  ELEZOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 76202/16

  F.J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.05.2018 - 14585/17

  SAMESOV AND KUDRYAVTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 58087/14

  ANGHEL v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 75045/12

  SADIKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 3925/10

  LEMO v. CROATIA and 7 other applications
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 24294/20

  MOCAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 28519/10

  PANOVA v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 18.06.2024 - 14179/21

  CASSAR v. MALTA
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 5358/14

  X AND Y v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2014 - 38906/13

  TIJARDOVIC v. CROATIA