CtEDO 03.04.2018 Auto

CASE OF ARČON AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

RESPONDENT
MNE
HOTĂRÂRE
03.04.2018
Pe scurt
Instanță
CtEDO
Concluzie
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)
RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2018
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro
Citează această cauză
CASE OF ARČON AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO (CtEDO, 2018)
HUDOC · oficial

În momentul în care toate reclamanții au fost angajate într-o companie numită Kombinat aluminijuma Podgorica. La 4 noiembrie 2003, 5 noiembrie 2003, și 28 ianuarie 2004, reclamanții au introdus plângeri civile separate împotriva angajatorului lor în Tribunalul de Primă Instanță din Podgorica, cerând plăți ale diferenței dintre salariile pe care le-au primit și cele pe care se presupunea că le-au avut dreptul pe baza Hotărâreaui privind munca colectivă (Kolektivni ugovor o radu). La 7 martie 2009, instanța de primă instanță din Podgorica s-a alăturat și a respins cazurile reclamanților. La 26 martie 2009, reclamanții au depus un recurs la Tribunalul Înalt din Podgorica. La 25 septembrie 2009, Curtea Înaltă a susținut decizia instanței de primă instanță.

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze
CtEDO 2017-09-05
0,92
CASE OF VUČINIĆ v. MONTENEGRO
October 1991 the applicant’s employer closed its office in Podgorica. In line with the domestic law at the relevant time, the applicant was entitled to compensation in the amount of 24 monthly salaries. A. The first set of civil proceedings
CtEDO 2012-10-23
0,91
CASE OF NOVOVIĆ v. MONTENEGRO
2 December 1993 the applicant filed two claims seeking reinstatement and compensation, one against his former employer, and one against the institution which, in the meantime, had taken over the functions from his former employer ( Republič
CtEDO 2016-10-25
0,91
CASE OF RADUNOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
incidents, and acting accordingly. They could occasionally be required to work at other locations and for special functions such as VIP visits, receptions and dinners at the Principal Officer’s Residence. 10. Between 14 February 2009 and 28
CtEDO 2012-12-11
0,91
CASE OF MILIĆ v. MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
. On 17 November 2009 this decision became final. 17. On 6 May 2004, upon the applicant’s separate claim, the Court of First Instance in Podgorica ordered the Clinical Centre of Montenegro to pay the applicant 4,456 euros (“EUR”) for salary
CtEDO 2018-03-20
0,91
CASE OF MONTEMLIN ŠAJO v. MONTENEGRO
4. The applicant company is a privately owned company registered in Danilovgrad, Montenegro. 5. In July 2004 a call for tender for hotel “Otrant” in Montenegro was issued. The deadline for submitting bids was October 2004. Together with thr
Sursă