Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  APOSTOLOVI v. BULGARIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  APOSTOLOVI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  1828/06 and 2 others, § 309, 28 June 2018).
• EGMR, 07.05.1974 - 1936/63

  NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  Under the terms of Article 41 of the Convention, the Court may only award just satisfaction to an applicant if it "finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto" with respect to that applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Neumeister v. Austria (Article 50), 7 May 1974, § 30, Series A no. 17, and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 21 (i), Series A no. 14), and then also finds that the damage alleged to have been suffered by that applicant stems from that particular violation.
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02

  IÇYER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  This part of his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 (compare with Içyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2006-I).

 
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

  POSEVINI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  The rejection of many of his complaints as inadmissible (see paragraphs 4 and 86 above) calls for a certain reduction (see, among other authorities, Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 91, ECHR 2004-II; International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, § 169, 2 June 2016; and Posevini v. Bulgaria, no. 63638/14, § 100, 19 January 2017; see also paragraph 17 of the Practice Direction on Just Satisfaction Claims).
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  BORZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  If an applicant has pursued one apparently effective remedy, he is not required to have used another one directed to essentially the same end and not presenting a better prospect of success (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 47, ECHR 1999-II; and, specifically in relation to the domain at hand, Borzhonov v. Russia, no. 18274/04, § 54, 22 January 2009, and Dzinic, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  The rejection of many of his complaints as inadmissible (see paragraphs 4 and 86 above) calls for a certain reduction (see, among other authorities, Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 91, ECHR 2004-II; International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, § 169, 2 June 2016; and Posevini v. Bulgaria, no. 63638/14, § 100, 19 January 2017; see also paragraph 17 of the Practice Direction on Just Satisfaction Claims).
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 28078/95

  C.M. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  Although the part of his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention relating to those remedies is linked to that under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and must thus likewise be declared admissible, it is not necessary to examine those remedies also by reference to Article 13 (see, mutatis mutandis, Dzinic, cited above, § 82; C.M. v. France (dec.), no. 28078/95, ECHR 2001-VII; and G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  45434/12 and 2 others, § 59, 27 November 2018).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 58240/08

  SARISHVILI-BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  According to the Court's case-law, this second element may also be taken into account when analysing the point (see, among other authorities, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 262, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Sarishvili-Bolkvadze v. Georgia, no. 58240/08, § 60, 19 July 2018; and J.B. and Others v. Hungary (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15

  BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIA

  The Court's assessment 145. The Court may only afford just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention if it finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and also finds that the damage alleged to have been suffered stems from that specific violation (see Apostolovi v. Bulgaria, no. 32644/09, § 116, 7 November 2019; Genov and Sarbinska v. Bulgaria, no. 52358/15, § 96, 30 November 2021; and, more recently, Macate v. Lithuania [GC], no. 61435/19, § 225, 23 January 2023).
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40669/16

  NINA DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA

  The question of whether those provisions (as applied in the applicant's case) ensured a fair balance between her rights and any countervailing rights or interests will be examined below (see, for a similar approach, Apostolovi v. Bulgaria, no. 32644/09, § 93, 7 November 2019).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  There is nothing to suggest that the applicant faced serious difficulties in paying that sum (compare Apostolovi v. Bulgaria, no. 32644/09, § 72 in fine, 7 November 2019).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court considers that it was incumbent on the domestic authorities to adequately assess the applicant's individual circumstances and the supporting documents (see, mutatis mutandis, Apostolovi v. Bulgaria, no. 32644/09, § 103, 7 November 2019).
• EGMR, 03.03.2022 - 51853/19

  SHORAZOVA v. MALTA

  The freezing of assets in the context of criminal proceedings with a view to keeping them available to meet a potential financial penalty falls to be analysed under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which, among other things, allows States to control the use of property to secure the payment of penalties (see, for example, Apostolovi v. Bulgaria, no. 32644/09, § 91, 7 November 2019 and the case-law cited therein; and, more recently, Karahasanoglu v. Turkey, nos. 21392/08 and 2 others, § 144, 16 March 2021 in relation to temporary injunctions preventing the applicant from using and disposing of his assets).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 68477/17

  VEKIC v. CROATIA

  It thus follows that in the absence of an appropriate and sufficient redress - notably compensation for any non-pecuniary damage entailed by the seizure of property at issue (see Dzinic v. Croatia, no. 38359/13, §§ 86-87, 17 May 2016, and Apostolovi v. Bulgaria, no. 32644/09, §§ 65-73, 7 November 2019) - the applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation complained of (see, for instance, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 54-56, ECHR 2009, with further references).