CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG7
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 février 2001
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0208DEC005677300
- Date
- 8 février 2001
- Publication
- 8 février 2001
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officiellePartly inadmissible
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s925C5418 { width:8.33pt; display:inline-block } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .sD57E93E0 { width:306.66pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sDB870956 { width:333.01pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 56773/00 by Ilija RAJČEVIĆ against Croatia     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 February 2001 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges , [Note1] and   Mr   V. Berger , Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 19 February 2000 and registered on 20   April   2000,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Croatian citizen of Serbian origin, born in 1930 and living in Karlovac, Croatia. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows, On 18 September 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking damages for his destroyed property in the Karlovac Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Karlovcu ). On 21 January 1999 the Karlovac Municipal Court terminated the proceedings stating that the applicant had withdrawn his suit. The applicant appealed against that decision and on 17 March 1999 the Karlovac County Court ( Županijski sud u Karlovcu ) accepted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the municipal court. The case is still pending before the court of first instance. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the length of the civil proceedings has been excessive. He further complains, under Article 14 of the Convention, that the domestic courts discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin. He finally complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that his right to property has been violated insofar as the proceedings in question involve his request for damages for the destroyed property. THE LAW 1.     The applicant firstly alleges that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is violated due to the failure of the domestic courts to decide his case within a reasonable time. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations (...), everyone is entitled to a (...) hearing within a reasonable time (...)” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule   54 §   3   (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.   2.     The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convetnion that his right to property is violated as his property was destroyed, that he has been unable to obtain damages from the domestic authorities and that the domestic courts discriminate against him on the basis of his national origin. The Court observes that the proceedings for damages for the destroyed property are still pending before the domestic courts. It follows that this part of the application is premature and thus, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies according to Article   35 § 1 of the Convention and must, therefore, be rejected pursuant to Article   35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint about the length of the civil proceedings; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President     [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
- Formation
- 7
- Date
- 8 février 2001
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0208DEC005677300
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral