Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

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

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  The existence of such link is an indispensable condition for an award in respect of pecuniary damage (see, among other authorities, Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 111, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  The words "injured party" in Article 41 (former Article 50) of the Convention are synonymous with the term "victim" in Article 34 (former Article 25) and denote the person directly affected by the failure to observe the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 23, Series A no. 14; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 13, Series A no. 38; and Airey v. Ireland (Article 50), 6 February 1981, § 9, Series A no. 41).
• EGMR, 06.02.1981 - 6289/73

  AIREY c. IRLANDE (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  The words "injured party" in Article 41 (former Article 50) of the Convention are synonymous with the term "victim" in Article 34 (former Article 25) and denote the person directly affected by the failure to observe the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 23, Series A no. 14; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 13, Series A no. 38; and Airey v. Ireland (Article 50), 6 February 1981, § 9, Series A no. 41).

 
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  The Court is not bound by domestic scales or standards in the assessment of the latter point (see Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 190, 1 July 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 46815/09

  REISNER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  Even if Mr Bonev's claim is to be regarded as having been made on behalf of the bank, or if Mr Bonev may exceptionally be regarded as having become the "injured party" following the bulk sale of the bank's assets to another bank in 2007, which automatically terminated all of his shareholder rights in it (see paragraphs 71, 72 and 80 above and, mutatis mutandis, Olczak, cited above, § 59 in fine, and Reisner v. Turkey, no. 46815/09, § 47, 21 July 2015), the Court does not consider that an award is called for because it is not satisfied that there exists a sufficient causal link between the breaches found and the damage claimed.
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not in principle apply to proceedings concerning the reopening of a civil case (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 44-50, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  The freezing of Mr Panev's and Mr Ivanov's bank accounts was a measure of control of the use of property (see, mutatis mutandis, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 281-A, as regards the provisional seizure of assets with a view to their forfeiture under proceeds-of-crime legislation; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 67, ECHR 2003-IX, and Valentin v. Denmark, no. 26461/06, §§ 70-71, 26 March 2009, as regards the stripping of bankrupts of the right to administer and deal with their property; and Trajkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV, and Alisic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 99, ECHR 2014, as regards the freezing of bank accounts).
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  LUORDO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  The freezing of Mr Panev's and Mr Ivanov's bank accounts was a measure of control of the use of property (see, mutatis mutandis, Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 281-A, as regards the provisional seizure of assets with a view to their forfeiture under proceeds-of-crime legislation; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, § 67, ECHR 2003-IX, and Valentin v. Denmark, no. 26461/06, §§ 70-71, 26 March 2009, as regards the stripping of bankrupts of the right to administer and deal with their property; and Trajkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 53320/99, ECHR 2002-IV, and Alisic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 60642/08, § 99, ECHR 2014, as regards the freezing of bank accounts).
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  The appropriateness of a decision to prosecute thus normally falls out of the scope of the Court's review (see Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007, and Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 34, 18 January 2011).

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15

  BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIA

  It follows that his claim in respect of the loss of earnings resulting from his dismissal must likewise be rejected (see, mutatis mutandis, International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, §§ 162 and 165, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 59/17

  AYDIN SEFA AKAY v. TÜRKIYE

  Since the Court cannot, of its own motion, examine the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 of the Convention, it is not prevented from examining the applicant's arrest (which preceded his pre-trial detention) in the context of its examination under Article 5 of the Convention (see International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, § 131, 2 June 2016).
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 11288/18

  D c. FRANCE

  S'agissant du défaut d'épuisement des voies de recours internes, il convient de souligner que la Cour n'a pas actuellement pour pratique de soulever pareille exception proprio motu (voir, par exemple, Banque internationale pour le commerce et le développement AD et autres c. Bulgarie, no 7031/05, § 131, 2 juin 2016, et la jurisprudence qui y est citée).

 
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 46564/15

  KORPORATIVNA TARGOVSKA BANKA AD v. BULGARIA

  In its Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)334, relating to the execution of the judgment in Capital Bank AD (cited above), the Committee of Ministers (a) took note of the legislative reforms adopted since, "introducing, inter alia, a direct judicial review of decisions to withdraw the licence of a bank", and (b) observed that, in view of the recent case-law of the Bulgarian courts (which consisted of the Supreme Administrative Court's decisions relating to KTB - see paragraphs 31, 41, 45 and 47 above), the question of what additional general measures had to be taken to prevent similar breaches had been entirely taken up by the execution of the judgment in International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 7031/05, 2 June 2016), and on that basis closed the examination of the execution of the judgment in Capital Bank AD (cited above).

  SCOPE OF THE CASE 114. In its observations, KTB stated that it maintained all complaints raised in the two applications, in particular the complaints (a) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the panels of the Supreme Administrative Court which had dealt with Bromak's claim for judicial review of the withdrawal of KTB's licence had been dependent and partial; (b) under the same provision that in the same proceedings the Supreme Administrative Court had refused to submit a preliminary reference to the CJEU, as had the Supreme Court of Cassation in the proceedings relating to the BNB's application for KTB to be wound up; and (c) under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention that Bulgaria had not complied with the judgments in Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria (no. 49429/99, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts)) and International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 7031/05, 2 June 2016).

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  See, for example, International Bank for Commerce and Development and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, 2 June 2016, § 131, and the case-law cited therein.
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Yet, there is no right as such under the Convention not to be criminally prosecuted (see I.J.L. and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29522/95 and 2 others, § 101, ECHR 2000-IX; Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007; Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 34, 18 January 2011; and International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, § 129, 2 June 2016, as well as, mutatis mutandis, Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A).
• EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 32644/09

  APOSTOLOVI v. BULGARIA

  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, 21.12.2017 - 42758/05

  FELDMAN AND SLOVYANSKYY BANK v. UKRAINE

  The Court further considers it appropriate to continue examination of the present case despite the termination of legal personality of the applicant bank (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 74-80, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts) and International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, § 88, 2 June 2016, with further references therein).