Judgment Cakarevic v. Croatia - order to repay mistakenly paid benefits was excessive burden

CtEDO 2025-03-19 0,88

particular, taking into account the principle of good governance, did the total rejection of the action introduced by the applicant to claim compensation for the damage resulting from the erroneous information provided by the Social Securit

CtEDO 2022-05-30 0,88

s or penalties? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V? 2. Was the applicant able to claim retroactively payment of the amounts of

CtEDO 2019-09-17 0,88

quently, he had had no legal interest in the continuation of the proceedings. Secondly, in so far as the applicant considered that he had overpaid the costs of the proceedings to the State, he could apply to the competent Ministry – and ult

CtEDO 2014-11-04 0,87

the amount of compensation he was due for the pension debt. THE LAW 14. The Court notes that the present case does not differ in any respect from the case of Kovačević and Others v. Croatia (cited above) declared inadmissible as manifestly

CtEDO 2018-03-15 0,87

which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required: - of individual measures to put an end to viol