Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EKIMDJIEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 10, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 41894/98

  HAY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 47092/99

  Even though the respondent Government did not raise an objection in this respect, the Court, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, finds it necessary to first examine whether the applicant can claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 47092/99

  The Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 40, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 47092/99

  The Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 40, ECHR 2000-VIII).

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  They were simply a further aspect, or a further argument in support of, the complaint already set out in the application, namely, that the restriction of the applicant's right to liberty had been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Sâmbata Bihor Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania (dec.), no. 48107/99, 25 May 2004; Rasmussen v. Poland, no. 38886/05, § 30, 28 April 2009; and Mathloom v. Greece, no. 48883/07, § 39, 24 April 2012, and contrast Ekimdjiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47092/99, 3 March 2005; Cornea v. Romania (dec.), no. 13755/03, § 51, 15 May 2012; Kirlangiç v. Turkey, no. 30689/05, § 54, 25 September 2012; and Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, §§ 95-97, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 36293/02

  TEMESAN v. ROMANIA

  The Court notes that although the Government's objection refers only to the loss of victim status in respect of the alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 (c), bearing in mind the reasons advanced by the Romanian courts when awarding the compensation, the applicant's victim status shall be examined in the light of all alleged violations of Article 5. In this connection the Court reiterates that its competence to decide whether an applicant is a victim does not depend on an objection being raised by the respondent Government (see Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI; Ekimdjiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47092/99, 3 March 2005; and also, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 66-68, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 49438/99

  STAYKOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court recalls at the outset that its competence to decide whether an applicant is a victim does not depend on an objection being raised by the respondent Government (see Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI; and Ekimdjiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47092/99, 3 March 2005; and also, mutatis mutandis, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, §§ 66-68, ECHR 2006-...).