Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YORDAN IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001-IX; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59489/00, 20 October 2005; Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 46336/99, 24 November 2005; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59491/00, 19 January 2006; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 37586/04, 18 October 2011; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 34960/04, 18 October 2011; Singartiyski and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 48284/07, 18 October 2011; and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden-PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 2), nos.
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  In general, the Court examines complaints under Article 14 in addition to those under the substantive Article in conjunction with which it is being relied on only if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case and a separate examination is necessary (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 32, Series A no. 91; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 39619/06

  CHAPMAN v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  Since it is not evident whether the Sofia Court of Appeal's decision was amenable to appeal, the point must be resolved by reference to the principle that when an applicant attempts an apparently existing remedy which later transpires to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention runs from the point when he or she became or ought to have become aware of that (see, among other authorities, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009; El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 136, ECHR 2012; and Chapman v. Belgium (dec.), no. 39619/06, § 34, 5 March 2013).

 
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 26698/05

  TOURKIKI ENOSI XANTHIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  Furthermore, in several cases not materially different from the present one - some of which concerned interferences with the rights of persons asserting an ethnic minority consciousness - the Court, having found a violation of the substantive Convention right at issue, saw no need additionally to deal with the complaint under Article 14 (see, among other authorities, Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, 10 July 1998, § 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-VIII; Emek Partisi and Senol v. Turkey, no. 39434/98, § 31, 31 May 2005; Ivanov and Others, cited above, § 78; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 84; Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece, no. 35151/05, § 51, 11 October 2007; Emin and Others v. Greece, no. 34144/05, § 37, 27 March 2008; Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece, no. 26698/05, § 63, 27 March 2008; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others (no. 2), cited above, § 49; and National Turkish Union and Kungyun v. Bulgaria, no. 4776/08, § 52, 8 June 2017).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  In general, the Court examines complaints under Article 14 in addition to those under the substantive Article in conjunction with which it is being relied on only if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case and a separate examination is necessary (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 32, Series A no. 91; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII; Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 100, ECHR 2006-XI; and Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 144, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34144/05

  EMIN ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  Furthermore, in several cases not materially different from the present one - some of which concerned interferences with the rights of persons asserting an ethnic minority consciousness - the Court, having found a violation of the substantive Convention right at issue, saw no need additionally to deal with the complaint under Article 14 (see, among other authorities, Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece, 10 July 1998, § 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-VIII; Emek Partisi and Senol v. Turkey, no. 39434/98, § 31, 31 May 2005; Ivanov and Others, cited above, § 78; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others, cited above, § 84; Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece, no. 35151/05, § 51, 11 October 2007; Emin and Others v. Greece, no. 34144/05, § 37, 27 March 2008; Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece, no. 26698/05, § 63, 27 March 2008; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others (no. 2), cited above, § 49; and National Turkish Union and Kungyun v. Bulgaria, no. 4776/08, § 52, 8 June 2017).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  In general, the Court examines complaints under Article 14 in addition to those under the substantive Article in conjunction with which it is being relied on only if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case and a separate examination is necessary (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 32, Series A no. 91; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  AZIZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  In general, the Court examines complaints under Article 14 in addition to those under the substantive Article in conjunction with which it is being relied on only if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case and a separate examination is necessary (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 32, Series A no. 91; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 41561/07

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN - PIRIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  41561/07 and 20972/08, 18 October 2011.
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 35151/05

  BEKIR-OUSTA ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  BRANCHE DE MOSCOU DE L'ARMEE DU SALUT c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 44079/98

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 48284/07

  SINGARTIYSKI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 46336/99

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 33586/15

  AYDAROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Exceptionally, however, when applicants attempt an apparently existing remedy which turns out to be ineffective, the time-limit runs from the point when they became or ought to have become aware of that (see, among other authorities, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009; El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 136, ECHR 2012; and Yordan Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 70502/13, § 31, 11 January 2018).