Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAVRIL YOSIFOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01
• EGMR, 25.10.2017 - 74012/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 50326/99

  KOLEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  However, they are only required to avail themselves of remedies which are accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of their complaints and offer reasonable prospects of success (see, as a recent relevant authority, Kolev v. Bulgaria, no. 50326/99, §§ 70 and 72, 28 April 2005).

  Concerning the first objection of the Government, the Court, leaving open the question whether a claim for damages may amount to an effective remedy in respect of an alleged breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Kolev v. Bulgaria, no. 50326/99, § 71, 28 April 2005), observes that it has previously found that section 2 of the SRDA does not create a cause of action in respect of complaints under this provision (see Andrei Georgiev, cited above, § 80).

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  16419/90 and 16426/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991, DR 71, p. 253, and judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; and, more recently, Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007), under Article 5 § 4 about the failure of a national court to determine speedily an application for release (see Navarra v. France, no. 13190/87, Commission decision of 1 March 1991, DR 69, p. 168, and judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B), and under Article 5 § 1 about detention effected in violation of some of its requirements, such as to be ordered by a "competent court" or to be based on a "reasonable suspicion" (see Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, no. 12747/87, Commission decision of 12 December 1989, DR 64, p. 113; and Wloch v. Poland (dec.), no. 27785/95, decision of 30 March 2000 and § 90 of the judgment, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 05.10.1999 - 44958/98

  ANDERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  However, in a number of other cases the Court has accepted that, if the impugned detention has come to an end, an action for damages, which is capable of leading to a declaration that this detention was unlawful or in breach of Article 5 § 1 and to a consequent award of compensation, may be an effective remedy in respect of complaints under this provision (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Kokavecz, cited above; Anderson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44958/98, 5 October 1999; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; Kolevi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 1108/02, 4 December 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 517/02

  KOLANIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  In addition, he must have suffered, by reason of the absence of the relevant guarantees, feelings of frustration, uncertainty and anxiety not wholly compensated by the finding of violation or by the deduction of the relevant period of detention from his sentence (see, mutatis mutandis, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink, cited above, § 65; and Kolanis v. the United Kingdom, no. 517/02, § 92, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  However, in a number of other cases the Court has accepted that, if the impugned detention has come to an end, an action for damages, which is capable of leading to a declaration that this detention was unlawful or in breach of Article 5 § 1 and to a consequent award of compensation, may be an effective remedy in respect of complaints under this provision (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Kokavecz, cited above; Anderson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44958/98, 5 October 1999; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; Kolevi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 1108/02, 4 December 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02

  HARIS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  16419/90 and 16426/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991, DR 71, p. 253, and judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; and, more recently, Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007), under Article 5 § 4 about the failure of a national court to determine speedily an application for release (see Navarra v. France, no. 13190/87, Commission decision of 1 March 1991, DR 69, p. 168, and judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B), and under Article 5 § 1 about detention effected in violation of some of its requirements, such as to be ordered by a "competent court" or to be based on a "reasonable suspicion" (see Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, no. 12747/87, Commission decision of 12 December 1989, DR 64, p. 113; and Wloch v. Poland (dec.), no. 27785/95, decision of 30 March 2000 and § 90 of the judgment, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EKMR, 05.09.1988 - 11256/84

  EGUE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  In some cases the Court and the former Commission have found that an action for damages cannot be seen as an effective remedy in respect of complaints under Article 5 § 3 about the excessive length of time spent on remand (see Woukam Moudefo v. France, no. 10868/84, Commission decision of 21 January 1987, DR 51, p. 73; Egue v. France, no. 11256/84, Commission decision of 5 September 1988, DR 57, p. 60; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  His deprivation of liberty is therefore to be considered as detention "after conviction" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, regardless of the position under domestic law (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7; and B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, §§ 35-40, Series A no. 175).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  However, in a number of other cases the Court has accepted that, if the impugned detention has come to an end, an action for damages, which is capable of leading to a declaration that this detention was unlawful or in breach of Article 5 § 1 and to a consequent award of compensation, may be an effective remedy in respect of complaints under this provision (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Kokavecz, cited above; Anderson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44958/98, 5 October 1999; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; Kolevi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 1108/02, 4 December 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  In some cases the Court and the former Commission have found that an action for damages cannot be seen as an effective remedy in respect of complaints under Article 5 § 3 about the excessive length of time spent on remand (see Woukam Moudefo v. France, no. 10868/84, Commission decision of 21 January 1987, DR 51, p. 73; Egue v. France, no. 11256/84, Commission decision of 5 September 1988, DR 57, p. 60; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland