Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PASHOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court Reasonable time) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Pashov and Others v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

  That is why the Court has to examine compliance with the rule even in the absence of an objection by the Government to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III; and Manolov and Racheva-Manolova v. Bulgaria, no. 54252/00, § 25, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

  In previous cases, the Court has examined complaints initially raised about the length of criminal proceedings in a rape case as falling to be examined under Article 3; it has found that payment of compensation (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII) and legal aid (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010, and Ilbeyi KemaloÄŸlu and Meriye KemaloÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, 10 April 2012) constitute elements of the positive obligations of the State authorities to provide appropriate and sufficient redress in cases under Articles 2 and 3; it has also found violations of the rights protected by these provisions in cases where the applicants had obtained pecuniary compensation but the criminal investigation had resulted in inappropriately lenient punishment of the perpetrators or in no punishment at all - regardless of the late registration of the complaints under this head (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, 20 December 2007, and Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, §§ 31-32, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00

  KAMBOUROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

  The Court has already held that the enforcement stage is the second stage of the proceedings and that the right asserted does not actually become effective until enforcement (see Di Pede v. Italy, 26 September 1996, §§ 22, 24 and 26, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 197, ECHR 2006-V; and Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, § 53, 14 February 2008).

 
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  VASIL SASHOV PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

  In previous cases, the Court has examined complaints initially raised about the length of criminal proceedings in a rape case as falling to be examined under Article 3; it has found that payment of compensation (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII) and legal aid (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010, and Ilbeyi KemaloÄŸlu and Meriye KemaloÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, 10 April 2012) constitute elements of the positive obligations of the State authorities to provide appropriate and sufficient redress in cases under Articles 2 and 3; it has also found violations of the rights protected by these provisions in cases where the applicants had obtained pecuniary compensation but the criminal investigation had resulted in inappropriately lenient punishment of the perpetrators or in no punishment at all - regardless of the late registration of the complaints under this head (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, 20 December 2007, and Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, §§ 31-32, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

  That is why the Court has to examine compliance with the rule even in the absence of an objection by the Government to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III; and Manolov and Racheva-Manolova v. Bulgaria, no. 54252/00, § 25, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 19986/06

  ILBEYI KEMALOGLU AND MERIYE KEMALOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

  In previous cases, the Court has examined complaints initially raised about the length of criminal proceedings in a rape case as falling to be examined under Article 3; it has found that payment of compensation (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII) and legal aid (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010, and Ilbeyi KemaloÄŸlu and Meriye KemaloÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, 10 April 2012) constitute elements of the positive obligations of the State authorities to provide appropriate and sufficient redress in cases under Articles 2 and 3; it has also found violations of the rights protected by these provisions in cases where the applicants had obtained pecuniary compensation but the criminal investigation had resulted in inappropriately lenient punishment of the perpetrators or in no punishment at all - regardless of the late registration of the complaints under this head (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, 20 December 2007, and Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, §§ 31-32, 10 June 2010).

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 27791/09

  DIDOV v. BULGARIA

  Even though the Government did not object to the admissibility of that complaint, the Court is obliged to examine of its own motion its compliance with the six-month rule (see, for example, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III; and Pashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 20875/07, § 42, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 2866/13

  UZUNOVA AND SEID v. BULGARIA

  The Court has already established, including in the context of Bulgarian cases before it, that the prolonged failure of State bodies to enforce a final judgment in accordance with which they owed the payment of a sum of money breached both Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Mancheva, cited above, §§ 61-62 and §§ 66-68; Sirmanov v. Bulgaria, no. 67353/01, §§ 33-34 and §§ 38-39, 10 May 2007; and Pashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 20875/07, §§ 58-63, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 21341/07

  ABULAIL AND LUDNEVA v. BULGARIA

  The Court must examine compliance with the six-month rule even in the absence of any objection by the Government to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Pashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 20875/07, § 42, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 02.07.2015 - 18354/07

  KOTSEV v. BULGARIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bulgaria, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the failure to enforce, or the delayed enforcement of, final judgments by virtue of which State institutions had to pay a sum of money to the applicants, as well as concerning complaints about the violation of Article 13 of the Convention as a result of the absence of an effective remedy in that connection (see, for example, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 86 and § 117, ECHR 2009; Mancheva v. Bulgaria, no. 39609/98, § 60, 30 September 2004; Pashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 20875/07, § 59, 5 February 2013).