Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FAZLIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court Civil rights and obligations) Article 6-1 - Public judgment) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 40908/05
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 40908/05

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  The Government also drew attention to this Court's statement in Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II) that its conclusion on the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention to proceedings concerning the employment of civil servants was without prejudice to the question as to how the various guarantees of that Article should be applied in such proceedings.
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71, and Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 25, Series A no. 72).
• EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  WELKE AND BIALEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  The Court has nonetheless applied it with some flexibility (see Welke and Bialek v. Poland, no. 15924/05, § 83, 1 March 2011).

 
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  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, 13.02.2003 - 49636/99

  CHEVROL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  One of those guarantees, in cases concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations, is that the "tribunal" dealing with the case must have jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before it (see Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands, 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, § 52; Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, § 77, ECHR 2003-III; I.D. v. Bulgaria, no. 43578/98, § 45, 28 April 2005; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 98, 24 November 2005; Druzstevní zálozna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 72034/01, § 107, 31 July 2008; and Putter v. Bulgaria, no. 38780/02, § 47, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 19.06.2013 - 72034/01

  DRUZSTEVNÍ ZÁLOZNA PRIA AND OTHERS AND ANOTHER CASE AGAINST THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  One of those guarantees, in cases concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations, is that the "tribunal" dealing with the case must have jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before it (see Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands, 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, § 52; Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, § 77, ECHR 2003-III; I.D. v. Bulgaria, no. 43578/98, § 45, 28 April 2005; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, § 98, 24 November 2005; Druzstevní zálozna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 72034/01, § 107, 31 July 2008; and Putter v. Bulgaria, no. 38780/02, § 47, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78

  Axen ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71, and Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, § 25, Series A no. 72).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  It must in addition be pointed out that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach of the Convention or the Protocols thereto 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 breach and to redress as far as possible its effects (see, as a recent authority, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 254, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  It is also true that this Court has, albeit in different contexts, held that legitimate national security considerations may justify limitations on the rights enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10 July 1998, § 76, Reports 1998-IV; Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 61, ECHR 2000-II; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 68, ECHR 2001-IX; Devenney v. the United Kingdom, no. 24265/94, § 26, 19 March 2002; and DaÄŸtekin and Others v. Turkey, no. 70516/01, § 34, 13 December 2007).
• EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 33776/96

  POTOCKA ET AUTRES c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  The present case is not therefore concerned with the intensity with which the domestic courts should scrutinise the exercise of administrative discretion (contrast Zumtobel v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 32, Series A no. 268-A; Ortenberg v. Austria, 25 November 1994, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 295-B; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 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; and Crompton v. the United Kingdom, no. 42509/05, §§ 77-78, 27 October 2009).
• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

  ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99

  CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 70516/01

  DAGTEKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 24265/94

  DEVENNEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86

  ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 14810/02

  RYAKIB BIRYUKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.06.1990 - 11761/85

  Obermeier ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 55391/13

  RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ v. PORTUGAL

  The Court has previously had occasion to examine situations in which the domestic courts were unable or refused to examine a key issue in the dispute because they considered themselves bound by the findings of fact or of law made by the administrative authorities and could not examine the relevant issues independently (see Terra Woningen B.V., cited above, §§ 46 and 50-55; Obermeier v. Austria, 28 June 1990, §§ 66-70, Series A no. 179; Tsfayo, cited above, § 48; Chevrol, cited above, § 78; I.D. v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 50-55; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, §§ 99-108, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); and Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, § 59, 16 April 2013).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 10.01.2017 - C-682/15

  Berlioz Investment Fund - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Richtlinie 2011/16/EU - …

  28 - Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 16. April 2013, Fazliyski/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2013:0416JUD004090805, §§ 59 und 60, EGMR, 24. November 2005, Capital Bank AD/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2005:1124JUD004942999, §§ 99 bis 108, sowie EGMR, 28. April 2005, 1. D./Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2005:0428JUD004357898, §§ 50 bis 55.
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 62377/16

  DELIN v. BULGARIA

  The Court considers, in the light of its case-law, that this provision is applicable in the present case (see Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, § 90, ECHR 2012, Ternovskis v. Latvia (no. 33637/02, § 44, 29 April 2014, Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, § 52, 16 April 2013, and Miryana Petrova, cited above, §§ 31, 32 and 35).

  The Court finds that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage on account of the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention found in the present case (see Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, § 75, 16 April 2013, and Miryana Petrova, § 49, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

  LETINCIC v. CROATIA

  In this connection the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not bar the national courts from relying on expert opinions drawn up by specialised bodies to resolve the disputes before them when this is required by the nature of the contentious issues under consideration (see Csösz v. Hungary, no. 34418/04, § 34, 29 January 2008, and Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, § 59, 16 April 2013).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 38334/08

  ANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  One of the requirements flowing from Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is that a "tribunal" which determines "civil rights and obligations" must be able to examine all questions of fact and law which are relevant to the case before it (see Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, § 57, 16 April 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 43503/08

  ALEKSANDAR SABEV c. BULGARIE

  Le Gouvernement soutient que la présente espèce diffère des circonstances des affaires Fazliyski c. Bulgarie (no 40908/05, 16 avril 2013) et Miryana Petrova c. Bulgarie (no 57148/08, 21 juillet 2016), où la Cour a constaté une violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 53071/08

  CHAKALOVA-ILIEVA v. BULGARIA

  It further notes that the dispute was genuine and serious, and that the outcome of the proceedings before the domestic courts was directly decisive for the right concerned (see Fazliyski v. Bulgaria, no. 40908/05, § 52, 16 April 2013).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 9904/09

  YUDIN c. RUSSIE

  En revanche, elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention dans des affaires dans lesquelles les jugements rendus n'étaient pas accessibles au public ni pendant ni après leur prononcé (Fazliyski c. Bulgarie, no 40908/05, §§ 64-70, 16 avril 2013, Ryakib Biryoukov c. Russie, no 14810/02, §§ 38-46, CEDH 2008, et Moser c. Autriche, no 12643/02, §§ 99-104, 21 septembre 2006).
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 8389/10

  KRUSHEV c. BULGARIE

  Elle admet que l'intéressé a subi un tort moral à raison du manquement relevé par le présent arrêt (voir, mutatis mutandis, I.D. c. Bulgarie, no 43578/98, § 59, 28 avril 2005, Fazliyski c. Bulgarie, no 40908/05, § 75, 16 avril 2013, et Myriana Petrova c. Bulgarie, no 57148/08, § 49, 21 juillet 2016).