Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADOSLAV POPOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  In view of the applicant's failure to comply with the aforesaid requirement, the Court makes no award under Article 41 of the Convention (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 66-68, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  Thus, it considers that on that date the lack of access to a judicial officer who could consider the merits of the detention (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, §§ 47-50, ECHR 1999-III), a situation which had existed since 24 September 1998, ended for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  Accordingly, the authorities appear to have considered his detention mandatory, which makes this complaint similar to those in previous cases against Bulgaria where violations were found (see, for example, Ilijkov, cited above, §§ 67-87 and Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 57-67, ECHR 2003-I).

 
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 18, § 33, and Remli v. France, judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 571, § 33).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the "CCP") and the Bulgarian courts' practice before 1 January 2000 are summarised in the Court's judgments in several similar cases (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, §§ 25-36, ECHR 1999-II; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 55-59, 26 July 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 79-88, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures complained of, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 37444/97

  BAGINSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  Accordingly, the time-limit for submitting the related complaint to the Court expired six months after 4 May 1999 (see G.K. v. Poland (dec.), no. 38816/97, 8 December 1998; Baginski v. Poland (dec.), no. 37444/97, 21 January 2003; Oratowski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 40698/98, 6 February 2003; Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000; and Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  HRISTOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  Accordingly, the time-limit for submitting the related complaint to the Court expired six months after 4 May 1999 (see G.K. v. Poland (dec.), no. 38816/97, 8 December 1998; Baginski v. Poland (dec.), no. 37444/97, 21 January 2003; Oratowski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 40698/98, 6 February 2003; Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000; and Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97

  AL AKIDI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  Accordingly, the time-limit for submitting the related complaint to the Court expired six months after 4 May 1999 (see G.K. v. Poland (dec.), no. 38816/97, 8 December 1998; Baginski v. Poland (dec.), no. 37444/97, 21 January 2003; Oratowski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 40698/98, 6 February 2003; Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000; and Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000).
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 38816/97

  G.K. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  Accordingly, the time-limit for submitting the related complaint to the Court expired six months after 4 May 1999 (see G.K. v. Poland (dec.), no. 38816/97, 8 December 1998; Baginski v. Poland (dec.), no. 37444/97, 21 January 2003; Oratowski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 40698/98, 6 February 2003; Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000; and Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000).

• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA

  However, when on 15 January 2001 the Sofia Court of Appeal sent the applicant's request for release of December 2000 to the Sofia City Court with instructions to examine it, the latter failed to do so (see paragraph 20 above and Radoslav Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 58971/00, § 49, 2 November 2006).