Skip to content

CH/00/3468-A&M. Kovačević

20051215

CH/01/6979-A&M. E. M. & S. T.

20020308

CH/96/1-M Matanović

19970711

CH/97/34-A&M. Šljivo

19980910

CH/97/59-A&M. Rizvanović

19980612

CH/98/1335-A&M. et al. Rizvić et al.

20020308

CH/98/1366-A&M. V. C.

20000309

CH/98/659 et al.-A&M. Pletilić et al.

19990910

CH/99/2150-R Unković

20020510

At the beginning, the Human Rights Chamber refrained from considering violations of rights other than those alleged explicitly in the application.3317 However, shortly afterwards, the Human Rights Chamber did not request the applicant to specify the rights under Annex 6, which the applicant alleged to have been violated, but it assessed ex officio all issues that gave raise to possible violations of rights if the applicant’s allegations contained sufficient reason for it.3318 This corresponds to the European Court’s case-law, according to which the court itself decides how it will assess the submitted facts. In doing so, the court is not bound by the view of the applicant or the State.3319


Footnotes

  1. CH/96/1-M, paragraph 60.

  2. CH/97/59-A&M, paragraph 53; CH/97/34-A&M, paragraph 63; CH/98/659 et al.-A&M, paragraph 188; CH/98/1366-A&M, paragraph 58; CH/01/6979-A&M, paragraph 33; CH/98/1335-A&M et al., paragraph 156; CH/99/2150-R, paragraph 83; CH/00/3468, paragraph 39.

  3. Compare with ECtHR, Phillips v. the United Kingdom, 5 July 2001, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-VII, paragraph 38.

Share this page

This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.