Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAROV v. BULGARIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 56777/11

  Lastly, as to Article 13, it has been consistently interpreted by the Court as requiring a remedy in the domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131, and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88

  RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 56777/11

  Lastly, it is significant that any fine imposed under Article 271 § 11 is not entered into the police register (see Ravnsborg v. Sweden, 23 March 1994, § 33, Series A no. 283-B).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 56777/11

  Lastly, even though a fine is certainly aimed at ensuring punishment and deterrence, which has been seen as a feature of criminal penalties (see, for example, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 55, ECHR 2009), in the case at hand this element was mitigated, since the fine was imposed in the course of ongoing court proceedings and could be reviewed and repealed in the course of those proceedings at a subsequent hearing.

 
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 56777/11

  The Court observes furthermore that disciplinary proceedings in which the right to continue to exercise a profession is at stake can give rise to a dispute over "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, §§ 87-95, Series A no. 27, and in the specific context of the legal profession Malek v. Austria, no. 60553/00, § 39, 12 June 2003, and Di Giovanni v. Italy, no. 51160/06, § 36, 9 July 2013).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 16137/04

  KURDOV ET IVANOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 56777/11

  It has on numerous occasions stated that this is an autonomous concept and must be interpreted according to the three criteria known as the "Engel criteria" - the legal classification of the offence under national law, the very nature of the offence, and the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks incurring (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no. 22; Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2006-XIV; Kurdov and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 16137/04, § 37, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 15347/08

  VARADINOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 56777/11

  As to the nature of the offence committed by the applicant, the Court observes that Article 271 § 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to persons taking part in criminal proceedings, namely the parties, witnesses and experts (see paragraph 16 above; contrast Varadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 15347/08, § 39, 5 October 2017).