Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 14 and P1-1 Damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 40476/98
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  The Court also considers it necessary to point out that a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Lungoci, cited above, § 55, citing Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  The Court considers that the complaint under Article 14 is tantamount to a restatement of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. There is therefore no need to examine the same issues again in the context of Article 14 (see Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 24, § 66; and OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France, nos. 42219/98 and 54563/00, § 90, 27 May 2004).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  Under the Court's well-established case-law, Article 6 § 1 extends only to "contestations" (disputes) over civil rights and obligations which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law; it does not itself guarantee any particular content for these rights and obligations in the substantive law of the Contracting States (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 87, ECHR 2001-V, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  This is because, unlike the situations obtaining in all these cases, and in spite of the terminological similarity, review proceedings before the former Bulgarian Supreme Court were, after the reform of the CCP of 21 April 1990, not extraordinary proceedings, but part of the normal three-instance proceedings (see Stoitchkov and Shindarov v. Bulgaria, nos. 24571/94 and 24572/94, Commission decision of 28 June 1995, Decisions and Reports 82, p. 85, at p. 94; Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 24140/94, Commission decision of 22 February 1995, unreported; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, Commission decision of 29 June 1998, unreported; Marintchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 43232/98, 8 July 2003; and Raichinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47579/99, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  While it is clear that in the instant case the applicant was not prevented from commencing judicial review proceedings, that does not suffice, as the right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; and Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 35, 26 January 2006).
• EKMR, 22.02.1995 - 24140/94

  PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  This is because, unlike the situations obtaining in all these cases, and in spite of the terminological similarity, review proceedings before the former Bulgarian Supreme Court were, after the reform of the CCP of 21 April 1990, not extraordinary proceedings, but part of the normal three-instance proceedings (see Stoitchkov and Shindarov v. Bulgaria, nos. 24571/94 and 24572/94, Commission decision of 28 June 1995, Decisions and Reports 82, p. 85, at p. 94; Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 24140/94, Commission decision of 22 February 1995, unreported; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, Commission decision of 29 June 1998, unreported; Marintchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 43232/98, 8 July 2003; and Raichinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47579/99, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  This also seems to have been the procedure followed in many cases analogous to the applicant's. The Court is thus satisfied that at the material time the mayor's assent to the sale was needed under domestic law and, accordingly, that the proceedings relating to his refusal to give such assent were determinative of the applicant's alleged right to purchase the flat (see, mutatis mutandis, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, § 94 in fine).
• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  The Court must therefore establish whether the Supreme Administrative Court in fact determined the dispute, as the mere fact that the application for judicial review was held to be inadmissible does not mean that the applicant was denied access to a court, always provided that the dispute which he submitted for adjudication was the subject of a genuine examination (see, mutatis mutandis, Obermeier v. Austria, judgment of 28 June 1990, Series A no. 179, p. 21, § 68).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  It reiterates on this point that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 13-18, §§ 28-36; and Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3166, § 136, and p. 3169, § 147).
• EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 24571/94

  STOITCHKOV AND SHINDAROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  This is because, unlike the situations obtaining in all these cases, and in spite of the terminological similarity, review proceedings before the former Bulgarian Supreme Court were, after the reform of the CCP of 21 April 1990, not extraordinary proceedings, but part of the normal three-instance proceedings (see Stoitchkov and Shindarov v. Bulgaria, nos. 24571/94 and 24572/94, Commission decision of 28 June 1995, Decisions and Reports 82, p. 85, at p. 94; Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 24140/94, Commission decision of 22 February 1995, unreported; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, Commission decision of 29 June 1998, unreported; Marintchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 43232/98, 8 July 2003; and Raichinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47579/99, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 20.11.1995 - 19589/92

  BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY LTD c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 23.10.1985 - 8848/80

  BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  FAZLIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  The most appropriate form of redress in cases where an applicant has not had access to a tribunal in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is, as a rule, to re-open the proceedings in due course and re-examine the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair trial (see, among other authorities, Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 90, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  BILGEN v. TURKEY

  In so doing, the Court must have regard to the wording of the relevant legal provisions and to their interpretation, if any, by the domestic courts (see Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 58, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 56665/09

  KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY

  To ascertain whether this was the case, the Court must only verify whether the applicant's arguments on this point were sufficiently tenable; it does not have to decide whether they were well-founded in terms of Hungarian law (see Le Calvez v. France, 29 July 1998, § 56, Reports 1998-V; Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 48, ECHR 2000-IV; and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 58, 10 August 2006).

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  GABRIELYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the case of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant should as far as possible be put in the position he would have been in had the requirements of this provision not been disregarded (see, mutatis mutandis, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 127, ECHR 2006-...; and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 89, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98

  VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The fact that the Supreme Administrative Court later adopted the view that there was no "right" to purchase a municipal apartment under section 5 § 2 of the Compensation Law did not remove, retrospectively, the arguability of the applicant's claim at the time it was submitted for adjudication (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 89, ECHR 2001-V and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 58, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 29476/06

  D.M.T. ET D.K.I. c. BULGARIE

  En particulier, dans les cas de non-observation de l'une des garanties de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, le redressement le plus approprié consiste, en principe, à rejuger l'affaire ou à rouvrir la procédure en temps utile et dans le respect des exigences de l'article 6 (Lungoci c. Roumanie, no 62710/00, § 56, 26 janvier 2006, et Yanakiev c. Bulgarie, no 40476/98, § 90, 10 août 2006, pour le droit d'accès à un tribunal ; Somogyi c. Italie, no 67972/01, § 86, CEDH 2004-IV, pour le droit de participer au procès ; et Gençel c. Turquie, no 53431/99, § 27, 23 octobre 2003, et Tahir Duran c. Turquie, no 40997/98, § 23, 29 janvier 2004, pour le manque d'indépendance et d'impartialité de la juridiction de jugement).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 46564/15

  KORPORATIVNA TARGOVSKA BANKA AD v. BULGARIA

  This is particularly so when the breach has consisted in an inability to obtain effective access to a court (see, for instance, Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 90, 10 August 2006; Lesjak v. Croatia, no. 25904/06, § 54, 18 February 2010; Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 79, ECHR 2010; Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, § 76, 16 April 2013; Kardos v. Croatia, no. 25782/11, § 67, 26 April 2016; Miryana Petrova v. Bulgaria, no. 57148/08, § 50, 21 July 2016; Centre for the Development of Analytical Psychology v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos.
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 38222/02

  RAMADHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  While it is clear that in the instant case the applicants were not prevented from commencing proceedings for the recognition of their property rights under the Property Acts, that does not suffice, as the right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see, mutatis mutandis, Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Lungoci v. Romania, no. 62710/00, § 35, 26 January 2006; and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 68, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 57148/08

  MIRYANA PETROVA v. BULGARIA

  The most appropriate form of redress in cases where an applicant has not had access to a tribunal in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is, as a rule, to re-open the proceedings in due course and re-examine the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair trial (see, among other authorities, Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 90, 10 August 2006, and Fazliyski, cited above, § 76).
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 15253/10

  SIMECKI v. CROATIA

  The most important factor is that the dispute submitted for adjudication was the subject of a genuine examination (see Kostadin Mihaylov v. Bulgaria, no. 17868/07, § 39, 27 March 2008, and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 69, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 11656/08

  BAR-BAU SP. Z O. O. c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 22926/04

  IORDAN PETROV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 11423/19

  GUMENYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 62377/16

  DELIN v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 13479/11

  AVETISYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13577/05

  RADEVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 37193/07

  PARASKEVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 17868/07

  KOSTADIN MIHAYLOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 53421/15

  PARDO CAMPOY ET LOZANO RODRIGUEZ c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18550/13

  MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2016 - 27866/10

  TER-SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 26524/04

  DIMITAR KRASTEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  WNUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 23530/02

  IORDAN IORDANOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 11724/04

  NIKOGHOSYAN AND MELKONYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51472/12

  SMOLIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 3571/09

  ASATRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 43603/09

  PULYAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 8947/05

  GERDZHIKOV AND CHATEAU VALLEE DES ROSES EOOD v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 35688/11

  MANUCHARYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 79653/12

  MUIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2016 - 31548/09

  MIGASHKIN v. RUSSIA