CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2018
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-181086
- Date
- 1 février 2018
- Publication
- 1 février 2018
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 officielleCommunicated
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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 1 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 38704/15 Vlado BRATULIĆ against Croatia lodged on 31 July 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the denial of access to court in the civil proceedings the applicant instituted in 1989 against the insurance company   D. from Belgrade seeking compensation for the damage sustained in a road traffic accident. In 2003 the first-instance court refused to allow the applicant to amend his action and sue, instead of the company D., the insurance company J. from Split which was in his view the legal successor of the former company on the territory of Croatia. That court decided so because it had considered that the company J. was not the legal successor of the company D. However, in 2011 the same court eventually dismissed the applicant’s action against the company D. by holding that it was the company J. which was actually liable to pay him compensation. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the refusal of the domestic courts to allow the applicant to amend his civil action and sue the company J. instead of the initial defendant, company D., in breach his right of access to court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that those courts later on established that company   J. was liable to pay him compensation and on that ground dismissed his action against the company D.?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 1 février 2018
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-181086
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel