Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=01.04.2010&Aktenzeichen=32540/05
Timestamp: 2019-12-09 10:05:24
Document Index: 99379430

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 66', '§ 66', '§ 75', '§ 83', '§ 1', '§ 83', '§ 66']

EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 32540/05 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2010,63378
EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 32540/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63378)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.04.2010 - 32540/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63378)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. April 2010 - 32540/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63378)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63378) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
What the Court needs to ascertain in a given case is whether the nature of the time-limit in question and/or the manner in which it was applied are compatible with the Convention (see Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).
What the Court needs to ascertain in a given case is whether the nature of the limitation in question and/or the manner in which it was applied are compatible with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).
Given the nature of the applicant's complaint and the reasons for which it has found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that in the present case the most appropriate form of redress would be to reopen the proceedings complained of in due course (see, mutatis mutandis, Trgo v. Croatia, no. 35298/04, § 75, 11 June 2009, and Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, §§ 83-85, 1 April 2010).
EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 27630/07
CIKANOVIC v. CROATIA
Given the nature of the applicant's complaint and the reason for which it has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that in the present case the most appropriate way of repairing the consequences of that violation is to reopen the proceedings complained of (see Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, §§ 83-84, 1 April 2010).
The Court's role is limited to that of verifying compatibility with the Convention of the effects of such interpretation (see, mutatis mutandis, Vrbica v. Croatia, no. 32540/05, § 66, 1 April 2010).