Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TODOROV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 39832/98
• EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 39832/98
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

  The Court does not find that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive as such (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

  Article 13 therefore offers an alternative: a remedy will be considered "effective" if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.)[GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 28898/95

  HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

  Even if it is accepted that after its introduction in July 1999 the applicant could have effectively fought against the further delays by filing such complaints, that could not have made up for the delay already accumulated during the period 1993-99. In this connection, the Court notes that the effectiveness of a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, Holzinger v. Austria (No. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001, and Rajak v. Croatia, no. 49706/99, §§ 33-35, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

  The Court does not find that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive as such (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003).
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 49706/99

  RAJAK v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

  Even if it is accepted that after its introduction in July 1999 the applicant could have effectively fought against the further delays by filing such complaints, that could not have made up for the delay already accumulated during the period 1993-99. In this connection, the Court notes that the effectiveness of a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, Holzinger v. Austria (No. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001, and Rajak v. Croatia, no. 49706/99, §§ 33-35, 28 June 2001).

• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  KRAMAREVA v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court has considered that the mere fact that such an officer participated in the proceedings cannot as such give rise to an issue under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Todorov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39832/98, 14 March 2002) and that the fact that a similar point of view is defended before a court by several parties does not necessarily place the opposing party in a position of "substantial disadvantage" when presenting his or her case (see Yvon, cited above, § 32).