Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHORBADZHIYSKI AND KRASTEVA v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CHORBADZHIYSKI AND KRASTEVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 68490/01

  STANKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  Relying on the Court's judgment in Stankov v. Bulgaria (no. 68490/01, 12 July 2007), the applicants argued that in reply to that judgment, the 1988 Act had been changed and no longer required the payment of court fees by claimants in case their claims against the State had been allowed in whole or in part by the courts (see paragraph 34 below).

  The relevant provisions in the 1988 Act (see paragraph 8 above) concerning court fees were summarised in the case of Stankov v. Bulgaria (no. 68490/01, §§ 19-21, 12 July 2007) and more recently in the case of Zaharieva (cited above, §§ 43-48).

  In the light of its case-law, the Court considers that the complaints concerning the court fees that the applicants were ordered to pay fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, §§ 49-67, 12 July 2007; Zaharieva v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 6194/06, § 87, 20 November 2012; Ermenkova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 75873/01, 14 June 2011; and Harrison McKee v. Hungary, no. 22840/07, §§ 14-15, 3 June 2014), which provides, in so far as relevant:.

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  Although the Court's task in cases arising from individual applications is not to review domestic law in the abstract, but to examine the manner in which that law has been applied to the applicants (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 153, Series A no. 324), the Court cannot but note the significant difference in the amounts of the court fees required for the same service between claims against the State under the 1988 Act, as amended in 2008 (flat fee, see paragraph 33 above) and those examined under the general law of tort set out in the Obligations and Contracts Act 1951 (4% of the amount claimed, see paragraph 31 above).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 75, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  However, the amount of the fees assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of a given case, including the applicant's ability to pay them, and the phase of the proceedings at which that restriction has been imposed are factors which are material in determining whether or not a person enjoyed his right of access to a court (see Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 60, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  The same approach was followed in respect of claims worded in a very cursory fashion barely satisfying the legal requirements, where the national court has ruled on the merits of the case, albeit briefly (see also Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 43, ECHR 2009 and cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  Moreover, when an applicant has pursued one remedy, the use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see also Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 177, 25 June 2019).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  17153/11 and 29 others, § 76, 25 March 2014 and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 87, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  It has further held that non-exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be held against the applicant if, in spite of the latter's failure to observe the forms prescribed by law, the competent authority has nevertheless examined the substance of the appeal (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 52, 24 July 2008 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 35123/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  Such a restriction will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aims sought to be achieved (see Urbanek v. Austria, no. 35123/05, § 50, 9 December 2010).
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14

  POSEVINI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  It also considers that the hourly rate charged by the applicants' legal representatives is higher than those charged in recent cases against Bulgaria of even greater complexity (see Posevini v. Bulgaria, no. 63638/14, § 100, 19 January 2017 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 22840/07

  HARRISON MCKEE v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 57214/09

  KIROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 16828/02

  KUPIEC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 33586/15

  AYDAROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 47436/07

  SLAVKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 75873/01

  ERMENKOVA v. BULGARIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.05.2024 - 57002/11

  MANDEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court has held that systems of court fees pursue the legitimate aims of funding the judicial system, of increasing public revenue, and of acting as a deterrent to frivolous claims (see Perdigão, cited above, § 61, and Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, § 59, 2 April 2020).

  Rn. 2 We note at the outset that the Court has examined complaints about allegedly excessive court fees both under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the former cases, the focus of the examination has been on the right of access to a court, even if this has not prevented the Court from finding a violation of that right on account of high court fees in cases where the applicants had actually had the merits of their cases determined by domestic courts (see, for example, Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, 12 July 2007, and Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, 2 April 2020).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND C.C. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  K.J. therefore cannot be said to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for similar reasoning, Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, §§ 48-49, 2 April 2020; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 143, ECHR 2010 (with further references); and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 52, 24 July 2008 (with further references)).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 59914/16

  NALBANT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The system, however, has to be sufficiently flexible to allow a party to benefit from full or partial exemption from the payment of court fees or a reduction in the court fees (see Urbanek v. Austria, no. 35123/05, §§ 60-65, 9 December 2010, and, more recently, Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, § 64, 2 April 2020).

• EGMR, 17.12.2024 - 18102/04

  TAGANOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Relevant information would have addressed questions like the manner of calculation of that tax, whether the system afforded a sufficient degree of flexibility, and whether the proportionality of the tax could be assessed by the de facto courts as a procedural guarantee against arbitrariness (see, albeit in the context of an Article 6 complaint, Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, § 64, 2 April 2020, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 59667/14

  BOYCHEV c. BULGARIE

  La Cour estime approprié d'examiner ce grief uniquement sous l'angle de l'article 6 (Chorbadzhiyski et Krasteva c. Bulgarie, no 54991/10, § 44, 2 avril 2020, avec les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 30.05.2024 - 17796/20

  PATOCKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  In determining whether or not an applicant enjoyed his right of access to a court, the Court takes into account the amount of the fees, including the applicant's ability to pay them, their ratio to the claim which was allowed by the domestic courts, the phase of the proceedings at which that restriction was imposed, the foreseeability of such fees when they are imposed at the end of the proceedings, and whether the court fee system at issue afforded a sufficient degree of flexibility to allow a party to benefit from an exemption from the payment of court fees (see, for example, Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, § 64, 26 July 2005 Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, § 60, 2 April 2020).
• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 17157/16

  STOYANOVA v. BULGARIA

  S'il est vrai que la requérante s'est vu octroyer seulement 9 % du montant qu'elle réclamait, rien ne permet de considérer que sa demande ait été déraisonnable ou grossièrement exagérée (comparer avec Kupiec c. Pologne, no 16828/02, §§ 47 et 49, 3 février 2009, et Chorbadzhiyski et Krasteva c. Bulgarie, no 54991/10, § 62, 2 avril 2020).