Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56077
EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,56077)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.05.2011 - 37346/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,56077)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Mai 2011 - 37346/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,56077)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56077) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    FINGER v. BULGARIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 6-1 Respondent State to take measures of a general character Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

  • EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

    RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    In cases concerning chiefly delays occurring prior to July 1999 the Court did not find it necessary to determine whether the "complaint about delays" was an effective remedy on the basis that even if it was, it had been introduced too late to make up for the delay which had already accrued (see Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 52, 8 July 2004; Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, § 78, 23 September 2004; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, §§ 66, 67 and 100, 23 September 2004; Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 39832/98, § 60, 18 January 2005; Hadjibakalov, cited above, § 61; Babichkin v. Bulgaria, no. 56793/00, § 41, 10 August 2006; Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 54, 28 September 2006; Kuyumdzhiyan v. Bulgaria, no. 77147/01, § 47 in fine, 24 May 2007; Simizov v. Bulgaria, no. 59523/00, §§ 53 and 54, 18 October 2007; Kambourov, cited above, § 80; Jeliazkov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 9143/02, § 49, 3 April 2008; Givezov v. Bulgaria, no. 15154/02, § 38, 22 May 2008; Kuncheva v. Bulgaria, no. 9161/02, § 40, 3 July 2008; Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria, no. 20568/02, § 31, 2 July 2009; Kabakchievi v. Bulgaria, no. 8812/07, § 38, 6 May 2010; Kotseva-Dencheva v. Bulgaria, no. 12499/05, § 28, 10 June 2010; and Rosen Petkov v. Bulgaria, no. 65417/01, § 35, 2 September 2010).

    However, according to the Court's established case-law, such mechanisms cannot be regarded as an effective remedy because they do not give the individuals concerned a personal right to compel the State to exercise its supervisory powers (see Gibas v. Poland, no. 24559/94, Commission decision of 6 September 1995, DR 82, p. 76, at p. 82; Kuchar and Stis v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 37527/97, 23 May 2000; Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII; Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); Djangozov, cited above, § 56; Osmanov and Yuseinov, cited above, § 39; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 101, 23 September 2004; Sidjimov, cited above, § 41; and Sürmeli, cited above, § 109).

    Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, §§ 73-92, 23 September 2004.

  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

    Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    It should therefore be joined to the merits (see Sürmeli v. Germany (dec.), no. 75529/01, 29 April 2004, and McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 75, ECHR 2010-...).

    A comprehensive restatement of the relevant principles, as established in Kudla and its progeny, may be found in the Court's judgment in the case of Sürmeli v. Germany ([GC], no. 75529/01, §§ 97-101, ECHR 2006-VII, with further references):.

  • EGMR, 02.12.1999 - 32082/96

    Überprüfung der Länge eines in Portugal anhängigen Strafverfahrens durch den

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    While those statistics show that more and more people have resorted to that remedy (in 2009 it was used on more than two hundred and twenty occasions), there is no information showing in how many of those cases the higher courts have actually fixed time-limits for the lower courts to take certain procedural steps, and in how many cases the remedy has led to the actual acceleration of the proceedings (contrast Tomé Mota v. Portugal (dec.), no. 32082/96, ECHR 1999-IX, and Basic v. Austria, no. 29800/96, §§ 28, 29, 37, ECHR 2001-I).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    The Court would further emphasise that, to be truly effective and compliant with the principle of subsidiarity, a compensatory remedy needs to operate retrospectively and provide redress in respect of delays which predate its introduction, both in proceedings which are still pending and in proceedings which have been concluded but in which the litigants have already applied to the Court or may do so (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 20, 23, 36 and 40, ECHR 2005-V; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 20, 23, 37 and 41, 1 March 2005; Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40552/02, §§ 11 in fine and 62, 16 October 2007; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48 and 57-68, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); and Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 463/03, § 39 and 63-71, 15 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    The Court would further emphasise that, to be truly effective and compliant with the principle of subsidiarity, a compensatory remedy needs to operate retrospectively and provide redress in respect of delays which predate its introduction, both in proceedings which are still pending and in proceedings which have been concluded but in which the litigants have already applied to the Court or may do so (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 20, 23, 36 and 40, ECHR 2005-V; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 20, 23, 37 and 41, 1 March 2005; Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40552/02, §§ 11 in fine and 62, 16 October 2007; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48 and 57-68, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); and Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 463/03, § 39 and 63-71, 15 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

    CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    The Court would further emphasise that, to be truly effective and compliant with the principle of subsidiarity, a compensatory remedy needs to operate retrospectively and provide redress in respect of delays which predate its introduction, both in proceedings which are still pending and in proceedings which have been concluded but in which the litigants have already applied to the Court or may do so (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 20, 23, 36 and 40, ECHR 2005-V; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 20, 23, 37 and 41, 1 March 2005; Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40552/02, §§ 11 in fine and 62, 16 October 2007; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48 and 57-68, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); and Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 463/03, § 39 and 63-71, 15 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

    MICHALAK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    The Court would further emphasise that, to be truly effective and compliant with the principle of subsidiarity, a compensatory remedy needs to operate retrospectively and provide redress in respect of delays which predate its introduction, both in proceedings which are still pending and in proceedings which have been concluded but in which the litigants have already applied to the Court or may do so (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 20, 23, 36 and 40, ECHR 2005-V; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 20, 23, 37 and 41, 1 March 2005; Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40552/02, §§ 11 in fine and 62, 16 October 2007; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48 and 57-68, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); and Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 463/03, § 39 and 63-71, 15 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 44068/02

    MAGURA v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    - the level of compensation must not be unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (on this point, see also Magura v. Slovakia, no. 44068/02, § 34, 13 June 2006; Risková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, § 89, 22 August 2006; Sidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 58, 26 September 2006; and Simaldone, cited above, § 30).
  • EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 58174/00

    RISKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    - the level of compensation must not be unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (on this point, see also Magura v. Slovakia, no. 44068/02, § 34, 13 June 2006; Risková v. Slovakia, no. 58174/00, § 89, 22 August 2006; Sidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 58, 26 September 2006; and Simaldone, cited above, § 30).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

    GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
    The Court would further emphasise that, to be truly effective and compliant with the principle of subsidiarity, a compensatory remedy needs to operate retrospectively and provide redress in respect of delays which predate its introduction, both in proceedings which are still pending and in proceedings which have been concluded but in which the litigants have already applied to the Court or may do so (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 20, 23, 36 and 40, ECHR 2005-V; Michalak v. Poland (dec.), no. 24549/03, §§ 20, 23, 37 and 41, 1 March 2005; Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40552/02, §§ 11 in fine and 62, 16 October 2007; Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 48 and 57-68, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); and Korenjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 463/03, § 39 and 63-71, 15 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 463/03

    KORENJAK v. SLOVENIA

  • EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 62155/00

    PROVIDE S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 8416/05

    POTZMADER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04

    BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  • EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

    GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

    Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

  • EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

    GUINCHO c. PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

    Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 476/07

    OLARU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in

  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

    KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

    KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

    McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78

    CORIGLIANO v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

    VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

    Taking into account the recurrent and persistent nature of the problem, the large number of people it has affected or is capable of affecting, and the urgent need to grant them speedy and appropriate redress at the domestic level, the Court considers it appropriate to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in the present case (see Burdov (no. 2), cited above, § 130; and Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, § 128, 10 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

    Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

    The question whether any individual domestic authority is at fault for this state of affairs is immaterial, because what is at issue in proceedings before the Court is the responsibility of the State under international law, not that of individual domestic authorities or officials (see, mutatis mutandis, Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, §§ 95-96, 10 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 19219/07

    SYLKA v. POLAND

    The severity of a violation should be assessed by taking into account both the applicant's subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010; Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, § 70, 10 May 2011; and Eon v. France, no. 26118/10, § 34, 14 March 2013).

    The purpose of that rule, qualified by the drafters as a "second safeguard clause" (see the Explanatory report, § 82), is to ensure that every case receives a judicial examination, either at the national or at the European level, so as to avoid a denial of justice (see Korolev, cited above; and Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, § 73, 10 May 2011).

  • EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 21345/06

    DIMITROVI v. BULGARIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

    The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bulgaria, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007 and Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 36307/06

    VELCHEVA AND SOTIROVA v. BULGARIA

    The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bulgaria, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006-....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007 and Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht