Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,5860
EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.03.2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. März 2018 - 37685/10, 22768/12 (https://dejure.org/2018,5860)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,5860) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions) (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA ET AUTRES c. CROATIE

    Partiellement irrecevable (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-1) Délai de six mois;Non-violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Protection de la propriété (Article 1 al. 1 du Protocole n° 1 - Biens) (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (530)Neu Zitiert selbst (38)

  • EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

    HARKINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The purpose of the rule enunciated in Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention is: (i) to ensure the finality of the Court's decisions and to prevent applicants from seeking, through the lodging of a fresh application, to appeal against previous judgments or decisions of the Court (see the Kafkaris decision, cited above, and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, ECHR 2017), and (ii) to avoid the situation where several international bodies would be simultaneously dealing with applications which are substantially the same, that is, a situation which would be incompatible with the spirit and the letter of the Convention, which seeks to avoid a plurality of international proceedings relating to the same cases (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 520, 20 September 2011).

    In the same vein one could reproach the Grand Chamber for relying in the instant judgment on, say, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, § 520, 20 September 2011), or on Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, § 91, ECHR 2016), or on Harkins v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, ECHR 2017), or on any of the numerous very recent judgments and decisions cited extensively in paragraph 115 and elsewhere in the judgment.

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    (a) in the context of determining the scope of a case referred to the Court by the former European Commission on Human Rights (see Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, §§ 20 and 39-40, Series A no. 11; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, §§ 47-48, Series A no. 112; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, §§ 28-29, Series A no. 172; Philis v. Greece (no. 1), 27 August 1991, §§ 55-56, Series A no. 209; and Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, §§ 45-50, Reports 1998-V) and, after the entry into force of Protocol No. 11, when determining the scope of a case before the Grand Chamber in the light of the Chamber's decision on (in)admissibility (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §§ 45 and 48-57, 17 September 2009);.

    Master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts, the Court is empowered to examine them, if it deems it necessary and if need be of its own motion, in the light of the Convention as a whole (see, inter alia, the judgment on the merits in the "Belgian linguistic case", 23 July 1968, § 1, Series A no. 6; De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 49, Series A no. 12; Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; and Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 157, Series A no. 25).

  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The wording of Article 34 indicates that a "claim" or complaint in Convention terms comprises two elements, namely factual allegations (i.e. to the effect that the claimant is the "victim" of an act or omission - see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51) and the legal arguments underpinning them (i.e. that the said act or omission entailed a "violation by [a] Contracting Party of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto").

    Indeed, in Eckle v. Germany (15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51), for example, the Court defined as constitutive of a claim the facts representing the interference, i.e. the factual allegations to the effect that the claimant is the "victim of an act or omission" (see paragraph 110 of the judgment).

     
  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    This was acknowledged by the Court itself in the case of Marckx v. Belgium (13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31): "... in certain Contracting States having a constitutional court: their public law limits the retroactive effect of those decisions of that court that annul legislation".
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    The Court reiterates in this connection that, even though no plea of inadmissibility concerning compliance with the six-month rule was made by the Government in their observations, it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see, for example, Sabri Günes, cited above, §§ 28-31; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 71, 10 January 2012; and Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

    Budweiser-Streit

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    This is particularly true when, as in this instance, the case turns upon difficult questions of interpretation of domestic law (see Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

    FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    In the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most notably in cases involving issues of exhaustion in substance, the Court has, along with the factual situation presented in the light of national law, placed emphasis on the Convention arguments relied upon at the national level (see, for example, Guzzardi, cited above, § 72; Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 200; B. v. France, 25 March 1992, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 232-C; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236; Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 306-B; Ahmet Sadik v. Greece, 15 November 1996, §§ 27-34, Reports 1996-V; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 33-39, ECHR 1999-I; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142-146, ECHR 2010; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 21-25, ECHR 2010; Association Les témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, §§ 25-30, 28 October 2010; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29426/08 and 29737/08, 10 December 2013).
  • EuGH, 14.12.1995 - C-430/93

    Van Schijndel / Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    See also the ECJ judgment of 14 December 1995 in van Schijndel and van Veen (C-430/93 and C-431/93, EU:C:1995:441, §§ 20 and 21).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80

    GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    In the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most notably in cases involving issues of exhaustion in substance, the Court has, along with the factual situation presented in the light of national law, placed emphasis on the Convention arguments relied upon at the national level (see, for example, Guzzardi, cited above, § 72; Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 200; B. v. France, 25 March 1992, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 232-C; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236; Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 306-B; Ahmet Sadik v. Greece, 15 November 1996, §§ 27-34, Reports 1996-V; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 33-39, ECHR 1999-I; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142-146, ECHR 2010; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 21-25, ECHR 2010; Association Les témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, §§ 25-30, 28 October 2010; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29426/08 and 29737/08, 10 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

    CASTELLS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
    In the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most notably in cases involving issues of exhaustion in substance, the Court has, along with the factual situation presented in the light of national law, placed emphasis on the Convention arguments relied upon at the national level (see, for example, Guzzardi, cited above, § 72; Glasenapp v. Germany, 28 August 1986, § 45, Series A no. 104; Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 200; B. v. France, 25 March 1992, §§ 37-39, Series A no. 232-C; Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, §§ 24-32, Series A no. 236; Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 306-B; Ahmet Sadik v. Greece, 15 November 1996, §§ 27-34, Reports 1996-V; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, §§ 33-39, ECHR 1999-I; Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2004-III; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 142-146, ECHR 2010; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 21-25, ECHR 2010; Association Les témoins de Jéhovah v. France (dec.), no. 8916/05, 21 September 2010; Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571/08, §§ 25-30, 28 October 2010; and Merot d.o.o. and Storitve Tir d.o.o. v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29426/08 and 29737/08, 10 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

    B. c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

    AZINAS c. CHYPRE

  • EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

    GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

    VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 30.05.2017 - C-122/16

    British Airways / Kommission - Rechtsmittel - Wettbewerb - Kartelle - …

  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

    ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 15.07.2004 - C-106/03

    Vedial / HABM

  • EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 8916/05

    ASSOCIATION LES TÉMOINS DE JÉHOVAH CONTRE LA FRANCE

  • EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 2619/05

    ZAPADKA v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

    MEROT D.O.O. AND STORITVE TIR D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 39544/05

    ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. CONTRE LA CROATIE

  • EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 57567/00

    BULENA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

    D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

    DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

    POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 14.11.1960 - 332/57

    LAWLESS v. IRELAND (No. 1)

  • EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

    PHILIS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

    NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

    FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 5335/06

    B.B. c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 59301/08

    TINNER c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

    MOCNY v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 67723/01

    PÕDER ET AUTRES c. ESTONIE

  • EGMR, 02.05.2024 - 35271/19

    THE J. PAUL GETTY TRUST AND OTHERS v. ITALY

    Although the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 150, 20 March 2018).

    I further observe that the Court has recently restated the following principles (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 149-150, 20 March 2018):.

  • EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 57292/16

    Recht auf Vergessenwerden: Den Unfallverursacher nicht beim Namen nennen

    Sauf si l'interprétation retenue est arbitraire ou manifestement déraisonnable, la tâche de la Cour se limite à déterminer si les effets de celle-ci sont compatibles avec la Convention (Radomilja et autres c. Croatie [GC], nos 37685/10 et 22768/12, § 149, 20 mars 2018, S., V. et A. c. Danemark [GC], nos 35553/12 et 2 autres, § 148, 22 octobre 2018, et Molla Sali c. Grèce [GC], no 20452/14, § 149, 19 décembre 2018).
  • EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15

    BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIA

    37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 128-30, 20 March 2018, and NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 28470/12, §§ 144-45, 5 April 2022).
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