Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GALINA KOSTOVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  However, under the 1991 Act the power to impose those sanctions is not given to the Minister of Justice, and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not in itself guarantee any particular content for civil "rights and obligations" in the substantive law of the Contracting States (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 81, Series A no. 98), although other Articles such as those protecting the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention) and the right to property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) may do so (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 98, ECHR 2001-V, and Nedyalkov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 663/11, § 111, 10 September 2013).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 49, ECHR 2005-X), they cannot necessarily be regarded as identical in all situations.
• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  The situation at hand is therefore different from those obtaining in cases in which the national courts were unable or unwilling to scrutinise findings of fact or law made by administrative authorities (see Obermeier v. Austria, 28 June 1990, §§ 69-70, Series A no. 179; Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, §§ 38-39, Series A no. 296-B; Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands, 17 December 1996, § 53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10 July 1998, § 74, Reports 1998-IV; Koskinas, cited above, § 30; Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, § 78, ECHR 2003-III; I.D. v. Bulgaria, no. 43578/98, § 46, 28 April 2005; Capital Bank AD, cited above, § 99; Tsfayo v. the United Kingdom, no. 60860/00, §§ 46-48, 14 November 2006; Druzstevní zálozna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 72034/01, §§ 112-13, 31 July 2008; Putter v. Bulgaria, no. 38780/02, §§ 48-56, 2 December 2010; and Fazliyski, cited above, § 59).

 
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  31-34, §§ 158-66; Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 268-A; ISKCON and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 20490/92, Commission decision of 8 March 1994, DR 76-A, p. 90; Ortenberg v. Austria, 25 November 1994, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 295-B; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 33-34, Series A no. 312; Bryan v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 44-47, Series A no. 335-A; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, §§ 54-58, ECHR 2001-X; Crompton v. the United Kingdom, no. 42509/05, §§ 77-78, 27 October 2009; and Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos.
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  In support of her legal challenge against the Minister's decision the applicant raised matters of law and fact susceptible of judicial assessment, and the Supreme Administrative Court had to determine a "contestation" (dispute) concerning a right asserted by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, H. v. Belgium, 30 November 1987, §§ 41-43, Series A no. 127-B; De Moor v. Belgium, 23 June 1994, §§ 42-47, Series A no. 292-A; W.R. v. Austria, no. 26602/95, §§ 28-30, 21 December 1999; and Goriany v. Austria, no. 31356/04, § 21, 10 December 2009).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  31-34, §§ 158-66; Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 268-A; ISKCON and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 20490/92, Commission decision of 8 March 1994, DR 76-A, p. 90; Ortenberg v. Austria, 25 November 1994, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 295-B; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 33-34, Series A no. 312; Bryan v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 44-47, Series A no. 335-A; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, §§ 54-58, ECHR 2001-X; Crompton v. the United Kingdom, no. 42509/05, §§ 77-78, 27 October 2009; and Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos.
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  Nor can it be said that this right enjoys indirect protection under Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 22, Series A no. 58), Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Karov v. Bulgaria, no. 45964/99, § 88, 16 November 2006, and D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria, no. 29476/06, § 102, 24 July 2012), or any other Article of the Convention or its Protocols.
• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

  ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  31-34, §§ 158-66; Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 268-A; ISKCON and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 20490/92, Commission decision of 8 March 1994, DR 76-A, p. 90; Ortenberg v. Austria, 25 November 1994, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 295-B; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 33-34, Series A no. 312; Bryan v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, §§ 44-47, Series A no. 335-A; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, §§ 54-58, ECHR 2001-X; Crompton v. the United Kingdom, no. 42509/05, §§ 77-78, 27 October 2009; and Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos.
• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 32181/04

  SIGMA RADIO TELEVISION LTD v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  32181/04 and 35122/05, §§ 151-69, 21 July 2011).
• EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88

  RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 36181/05

  The Court does not find that that Article was engaged under its criminal limb: under Bulgarian law, the matter is regarded as purely regulatory (see, mutatis mutandis, Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 283-B); the breaches imputed to the applicant were of rules governing specifically the duties of liquidators of insolvent companies, not of rules of general application (see Wickramsinghe v. the United Kingdom, no. 31503/96, Commission decision of 9 December 1997, unreported; Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38644/97, 24 November 1998; and Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, § 44, 19 February 2013); and the most serious sanction that the applicant risked was that which was in fact imposed: removal of her name from the list of persons qualified to act as liquidators of insolvent companies (see Wickramsinghe, cited above).
• EGMR, 23.06.1994 - 16997/90

  DE MOOR c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 49636/99

  CHEVROL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 663/11

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EKMR, 14.12.1978 - 7598/76

  KAPLAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 08.03.1994 - 20490/92

  ISKCON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 09.03.1988 - 12502/86

  GINIKANWA c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 38334/08

  ANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  A court which does not go into facts or issues because they are immaterial under the substantive rules applicable to the case before it does not fall short of that requirement (for illustrations of this point, albeit in different contexts, see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 94-101, ECHR 2001-V; Nedyalkov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 663/11, § 111, 10 September 2013; and Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria, no. 36181/05, §§ 61 and 64, 12 November 2013).
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

  PELEKI c. GRÈCE

  Plusieurs catégories professionnelles ont été visées: des avocats (Brown c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 38644/97, 24 novembre 1998, Müller-Hartburg c. Autriche, no 47195/06, §§ 41-48, 19 février 2013, Helmut Blum c. Autriche, no 33060/10, § 59, 5 avril 2016, et Biagioli c. Saint-Marin (déc.), no 64735/14, §§ 51-57, 13 septembre 2016) ; des fonctionnaires (J.L. c. France (déc.), no 17055/90, 5 avril 1995, Costa c. Portugal (déc.), no 44135/98, 9 décembre 1999, Linde Falero c. Espagne (déc.), no 51535/99, 22 juin 2000, Moullet c. France (déc.), no 27521/04, 13 septembre 2007, Vagenas c. Grèce (déc.), no 53372/07, 23 août 2011, et Nikolova et Vandova c. Bulgarie, no 20688/04, § 59, 17 décembre 2013) ; des médecins (Ouendeno c. France (déc.), no 18441/91, 2 mars 1994) ; des militaires (Kaplan et Karaca c. Turquie (déc.), no 40536/98, Gökden et Karacol c. Turquie, (déc.), no 40535/98, Batur c. Turquie, (déc.), no 38604/97, Duran et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 38925/97, Yildirim c. Turquie (déc.), no 40800/98, et Durgun c. Turquie (déc.), no 40751/98, décisions du 4 juillet 2007) ; des liquidateurs judiciaires (Galina Kostova c. Bulgarie, no 36181/05, § 52, 12 novembre 2013) ; des juges (Oleksandr Volkov, précité, §§ 92-95, Di Giovanni c. Italie, no 51160/06, § 35, 9 juillet 2013, Sturua c. Géorgie, no 45729/05, § 28, 28 mars 2017, et Kamenos c. Chypre, no 147/07, §§ 50-53, 31 octobre 2017) et, comme dans les circonstances de la présente affaire, des notaires (Durand, décision précitée, §§ 55-60 ; voir également Yankov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 44768/10, 18 juin 2019).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 43800/12

  TSANOVA-GECHEVA c. BULGARIE

  L'affaire concerne donc l'intensité du contrôle opéré par les juridictions internes sur la discrétion exercée par l'administration (à l'instar des arrêts Zumtobel c. Autriche, 21 septembre 1993, §§ 31-32, série A no 268-A, Bryan c. Royaume-Uni, 22 novembre 1995, §§ 43-47, série A no 335-A, Potocka et autres c. Pologne, no 33776/96, §§ 77-78, CEDH 2001-X, Sigma Radio Television Ltd c. Chypre, nos 32181/04 et 35122/05, §§ 151-169, 21 juillet 2011, et Galina Kostova, c. Bulgarie, no 36181/05, §§ 58-65, 12 novembre 2013).

 
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 64735/14

  BIAGIOLI v. SAN MARINO

  In assessing the sufficiency of judicial review available to an applicant, the Court will have regard to the powers of the judicial body in question (see, for example, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, § 44 Series A no. 328-C; Bryan, §§ 44-45, cited above; Potocka and Others v. Poland, no. 33776/96, § 55, ECHR 2001-X; and Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, § 32, ECHR 2002-IV), and to such factors as (a) the subject matter of the decision appealed against, in particular, whether or not it concerned a specialised issue requiring professional knowledge or experience and whether it involved the exercise of administrative discretion and if, so, to what extent; (b) the manner in which that decision was arrived at, in particular, the procedural guarantees available in the proceedings before the adjudicatory body; and (c) the content of the dispute, including the desired and actual grounds of appeal (see, inter alia, Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05, §§ 152-54, 21 July 2011 and references cited therein; and, more recently, Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria, no. 36181/05, § 59, 12 November 2013 and Fazia Ali, cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 78815/16

  MARINOVSKI c. BULGARIE

  La Cour rappelle que l'article 6 n'assure par lui-même aux droits et obligations de caractère civil aucun contenu matériel déterminé dans les ordres juridiques nationaux (Denisov c. Ukraine [GC], no 76639/11, § 45, 25 septembre 2018 et Galina Kostova c. Bulgarie, no 36181/05, § 64, 12 novembre 2013).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 14139/09

  SA PATRONALE HYPOTHÉCAIRE c. BELGIQUE

  Afin d'évaluer si, dans un cas donné, les juridictions internes ont effectué un contrôle d'une étendue suffisante, la Cour doit prendre en considération les compétences attribuées à la juridiction en question et des éléments tels que: a) l'objet de la décision attaquée, plus particulièrement si celle-ci a trait à un domaine spécifique exigeant des connaissances spécialisées ou si, et dans quelle mesure, elle implique l'exercice du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l'administration ; b) la méthode suivie pour parvenir à cette décision et, en particulier, les garanties procédurales existantes dans le cadre de la procédure devant l'autorité administrative ; et c) la teneur du litige, y compris les moyens de recours, tant souhaités que réellement développés (Bryan c. Royaume-Uni, 22 novembre 1995, § 45, série A no 335-A, § 45, Sigma Radio Television Ltd, précité, § 154, et Galina Kostova c. Bulgarie, no 36181/05, § 59, 12 novembre 2013).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 39701/14

  T.G. v. CROATIA

  The Court is not a court of appeal or a court of fourth instance above the national courts, and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by those courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, for instance, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015; see also Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria, no. 36181/05, § 54, 12 November 2013).