Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  In this way, that provision embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, is one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 January 1975, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, Series A no. 18; and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 91-93, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, §§ 30-41, 9 June 2015; Zarkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, §§ 24-35, 9 June 2015; Damjanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5306/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015; and Vukovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 3430/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, §§ 30-41, 9 June 2015; Zarkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, §§ 24-35, 9 June 2015; Damjanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5306/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015; and Vukovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 3430/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  In assessing compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court must make an overall examination of the various interests in issue (see Perdigão v. Portugal [GC], no. 24768/06, § 68, 16 November 2010), bearing in mind that the Convention is intended to safeguard rights that are "practical and effective" (see, for example, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 100, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, §§ 30-41, 9 June 2015; Zarkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, §§ 24-35, 9 June 2015; Damjanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5306/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015; and Vukovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 3430/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015).
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 27265/95

  TERAZZI S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the preliminary assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures that interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see Elia S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 37710/97, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX, and Terazzi S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 27265/95, § 85, 17 October 2002).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule" (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 62, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-104, Reports 1998-VI; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2003-III).
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 5306/13

  DAMJANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, §§ 30-41, 9 June 2015; Zarkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, §§ 24-35, 9 June 2015; Damjanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5306/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015; and Vukovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 3430/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015).
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06

  AMATO GAUCI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  In each case involving an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court must ascertain whether by reason of the State's interference, the person concerned had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98, and Amato Gauci v. Malta, no. 47045/06, § 57, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  NARIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 37710/97

  ELIA SRL AGAINST ITALY AND 2 OTHER CASES
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2015 - 1046/12

  ZAMMIT AND ATTARD CASSAR v. MALTA

• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 78836/16

  BURSAC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  They further complained, relying on Cindric and Beslic v. Croatia (no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016), that the order imposed on them to pay the costs of the State's representation in the civil proceedings was in breach of their rights of access to a court and to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

  Costs of proceedings Relevant provisions 40. The relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning costs of proceedings and the Scales of Advocates' Fees and Reimbursement of their Costs (Tarifa o nagradama i naknadi troskova za rad odvjetnika, Official Gazette nos. 91/2004, 37/2005 and 59/2007) are set out in Cindric and Beslic v. Croatia (no. 72152/13, §§ 43-44, 6 September 2016).

  As of 2017, the Constitutional Court had conducted an effective examination of complaints concerning costs of proceedings in the light of the criteria established in Klauz v. Croatia (no. 28963/10, § 31, 18 July 2013) and Cindric and Beslic v. Croatia (no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016).

• EGMR, 12.05.2022 - 49281/15

  DRAGAN KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

  The present case thus significantly differed from the cases of Klauz and Cindric and Beslic (see Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, 18 July 2013, and Cindric and Beslic v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016), where the applicants had been ordered to reimburse part of the costs of the civil proceedings to the State, which had significantly reduced the compensation awarded to them in those proceedings.

  The majority themselves recognise (in paragraph 55 of Kovacevic) that the present case also differs significantly from Klauz v. Croatia (no. 28963/10, 18 July 2013), and Cindric and Beslic v. Croatia (no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016), in which the issues at stake concerned orders under the applicable domestic legislation to reimburse part of the costs of civil proceedings to the State, although the applicants' claims were partially meritorious, orders which significantly reduced the compensation to which they were entitled.

• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 53977/14

  DERBUC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Court accepts that the requirement for the applicants to pay the costs of their defendants' representation in the respective proceedings may be viewed as a restriction hindering the right of access to a court, which pursued the legitimate aims of ensuring the proper administration of justice and protecting the rights of others by discouraging ill-founded litigation and excessive costs (see Colic, cited above, § 45; Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, §§ 81 and 84, 18 July 2013; and Cindric and Beslic v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, §§ 95-96, 119 and 121, 6 September 2016).

 
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 12055/17

  MUSA TARHAN c. TURQUIE

  Dans les affaires Klauz c. Croatie (no 28963/10, 18 juillet 2013) et Cindric et Beslic c. Croatie (no 72152/13, 6 septembre 2016), ce grief a été examiné successivement sur le terrain de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 et sur celui du droit à un procès équitable.
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone (compare Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 31, 12 January 2016; Cindric and Be?.lic v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, § 52, 6 September 2016; Borojevic and Others v. Croatia, no. 70273/11, § 32, 4 April 2017; M. and Others v. Croatia, no. 50175/12, § 52, 2 May 2017; Trivkanovic v. Croatia, no. 12986/13, § 43, 6 July 2017; and Zdjelar and Others v. Croatia, no. 80960/12, § 51, 6 July 2017) which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 53285/15

  ZAGORSKA v. BULGARIA

  The Court has already held that such a rule is not in itself contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, even in proceedings where the State is a party (see Cindric and Be?.lic v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, § 96, 6 September 2016).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 48045/15

  BENGHEZAL c. FRANCE

  La Cour a déjà jugé que le fait d'imposer aux justiciables une charge financière considérable à l'issue d'une procédure peut avoir pour effet de limiter leur droit d'accès à un tribunal (Stankov, précité, § 54, Klauz c. Croatie, no 28963/10, § 77, 18 juillet 2013, Cindric et Beslic c. Croatie, no 72152/13, §§ 118 et suivants, 6 septembre 2016, et Colic c. Croatie, no 49083/18, § 53, 18 novembre 2021).
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 69108/17

  ZULIC v. CROATIA

  In light of the above and regard being had to the previous cases against Croatia concerning costs of proceedings (see Colic, cited above; Klauz v. Croatia, no. 28963/10, 18 July 2013; and Cindric and Beslic v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016), the Court is of the view that the complaints raised in the present case do not concern an important question of principle, which might justify examining them any further, nor does respect for human rights require such an examination.
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 74778/14

  TARATUKHIN c. RUSSIE

  Dans les affaires qu'elle a été amenée à connaître postérieurement (Klauz, précité, § 77, et Cindric et Beslic c. Croatie, no 72152/13, §§ 119-123, 6 septembre 2016), la Cour a réitéré sa position tout en appliquant le même raisonnement aux dépens, qui, eux, étaient liquidés à l'issue du procès et consistaient en émoluments des officiers publics.
• EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 59667/14

  BOYCHEV c. BULGARIE

  En particulier, la Cour a déjà jugé que le fait d'imposer aux justiciables une charge financière considérable à l'issue d'une procédure peut avoir pour effet de limiter leur droit d'accès à un tribunal (Stankov, précité, § 54, Klauz, précité, § 77, 18 juillet 2013, Cindric et Beslic c. Croatie, no 72152/13, §§ 118 et suivants, 6 septembre 2016, Colic, précité, § 53, 18 novembre 2021, et Benghezal, précité, § 43, 24 mars 2022).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 50014/15

  PERSA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 32604/20

  BOSNIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 27702/16

  HORVAT v. CROATIA
• EGMR - 29338/22 (anhängig)

  GRADEL D.O.O. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 67568/16

  CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 60123/16

  COLAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 12370/10

  AKSOY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 65173/17

  STEFEK v. CROATIA