Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010; Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 69; and Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 83, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 2478/15

  NICKLINSON AND LAMB v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  2478/15 and 1787/15, § 90, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 45023/98

  BEN SALAH ADRAQUI and DHAIME v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 72 and 80, 25 March 2014; Papaioannou v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 15619/12, §§ 28-30, 15 September 2015; and Kunert v. Poland, no. 8981/14, §§ 42-43, 4 April 2019), such as a failure to meet a time-limit (see, for example, Ben Salah Adraqui and Dhaime v. Spain (dec.), no. 45023/98, ECHR 2000-IV; Alinak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 30514/96, 17 October 2000; and Peru?. v. Slovenia, no. 35016/05, § 47, 27 September 2012).

 
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 52335/12

  PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  In the light of the Bulgarian courts" recent tendency, including in proceedings under the 1988 Act, to engage more broadly with arguments based on the Convention by reason of its being directly applicable in domestic law (see paragraph 52 above), it cannot automatically be presumed that in such proceedings they would treat arguments based on Article 10 of the Convention as irrelevant (contrast Kandzhov, cited above, § 49, which predated the domestic judgments cited in paragraph 52 above, and compare with Multigestion v. France (dec.), no. 59341/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts), and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 37, 5 January 2016).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 15619/12

  PAPAIOANNOU v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 72 and 80, 25 March 2014; Papaioannou v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 15619/12, §§ 28-30, 15 September 2015; and Kunert v. Poland, no. 8981/14, §§ 42-43, 4 April 2019), such as a failure to meet a time-limit (see, for example, Ben Salah Adraqui and Dhaime v. Spain (dec.), no. 45023/98, ECHR 2000-IV; Alinak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 30514/96, 17 October 2000; and Peru?. v. Slovenia, no. 35016/05, § 47, 27 September 2012).
• EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 30514/96

  ALINAK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 72 and 80, 25 March 2014; Papaioannou v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 15619/12, §§ 28-30, 15 September 2015; and Kunert v. Poland, no. 8981/14, §§ 42-43, 4 April 2019), such as a failure to meet a time-limit (see, for example, Ben Salah Adraqui and Dhaime v. Spain (dec.), no. 45023/98, ECHR 2000-IV; Alinak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 30514/96, 17 October 2000; and Peru?. v. Slovenia, no. 35016/05, § 47, 27 September 2012).
• EGMR, 25.04.2002 - 59341/00

  MULTIGESTION contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  In the light of the Bulgarian courts" recent tendency, including in proceedings under the 1988 Act, to engage more broadly with arguments based on the Convention by reason of its being directly applicable in domestic law (see paragraph 52 above), it cannot automatically be presumed that in such proceedings they would treat arguments based on Article 10 of the Convention as irrelevant (contrast Kandzhov, cited above, § 49, which predated the domestic judgments cited in paragraph 52 above, and compare with Multigestion v. France (dec.), no. 59341/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts), and Peacock v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52335/12, § 37, 5 January 2016).
• EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 8981/14

  KUNERT v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 72 and 80, 25 March 2014; Papaioannou v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 15619/12, §§ 28-30, 15 September 2015; and Kunert v. Poland, no. 8981/14, §§ 42-43, 4 April 2019), such as a failure to meet a time-limit (see, for example, Ben Salah Adraqui and Dhaime v. Spain (dec.), no. 45023/98, ECHR 2000-IV; Alinak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 30514/96, 17 October 2000; and Peru?. v. Slovenia, no. 35016/05, § 47, 27 September 2012).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  Nor can the Court speculate on how the Bulgarian courts will approach this aspect of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, § 77 in fine, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 10351/18

  NINOVA v. BULGARIA

  The absence of a previous decision along those lines by the Speaker's Council does not in itself suggest that the possibility of having such arguments taken into account by it was merely illusory - that could well have been due to the absence of such challenges under Rule 162 § 3 of the Rules of the Assembly or its predecessor provisions (see paragraph 39 in fine above, and compare, mutatis mutandis, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, § 80 in fine, 8 September 2020).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 25658/19

  BANEVI c. BULGARIE

  Elle a notamment constaté que, étant de type indemnitaire, ce recours ne peut en principe fournir un redressement approprié pour des violations alléguées de l'article 5 que dans les cas où la situation litigieuse, qui est incompatible avec l'article 5 de la Convention, a déjà pris fin (Kolev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 69591/14, §§ 32-42, 30 mai 2017 ; Tsonev c. Bulgarie ((déc.), no 9662/13, §§ 52-70, 30 mai 2017 ; et Stefanov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 51127/18, §§ 68-69, 8 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 16282/20

  STAYKOV c. BULGARIE

  En effet, étant de type indemnitaire, ce recours peut en principe fournir un redressement approprié pour des violations alléguées de l'article 5 dans les cas où la situation litigieuse, qui est incompatible avec l'article 5 de la Convention, a déjà pris fin (Kolev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 69591/14, §§ 32-42, 30 mai 2017 ; Tsonev c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 9662/13, §§ 52-70, 30 mai 2017 ; et Stefanov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 51127/18, §§ 68-69, 8 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 36250/12

  SLAVKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  However, the remedy at issue was introduced in December 2012 (see, for more details, Stefanov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 51127/18, § 48, 8 September 2020), while the applicant's detention ended on 11 July 2012 (see paragraph 2 above), and the Court has already found that section 2(1)(2) has not been shown to apply to facts having occurred prior to its entry into force (see, for example, Kiril Andreev v. Bulgaria, no. 79828/12, §§ 31-41, 28 January 2016).