Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHESTI MAI ENGINEERING OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Struck out of the list Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (victim non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (32)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  Indeed, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate if national law does not allow - or allows only partial - reparation to be made (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV; Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 50003/99, § 76, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Todorova and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 7; and Kushoglu (just satisfaction), cited above, § 9).

  Among these, account should be taken of the company's reputation, uncertainty in planning and decision making, disruption in the management of the company and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team (see, among other authorities, Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, §§ 32-36, ECHR 2000-IV; Sovtransavto Holding (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 78-81; and Dacia SRL v. Moldova (just satisfaction), no. 3052/04, § 60, 24 February 2009).

• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  ZLINSAT, SPOL. S R.O. v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  s r.o. v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 98, 15 June 2006; Druzstevní zálozna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 72034/01, § 89, 31 July 2008; and Forminster Enterprises Limited, cited above, § 69), and that the State must afford judicial procedures that offer the necessary procedural guarantees and enable the domestic courts to adjudicate effectively and fairly on any disputes between private persons (see Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine, no. 22603/02, § 51, 22 November 2007).

  Lastly, the calculation of the loss suffered by the applicants inevitably involves a degree of speculation (see, mutatis mutandis, Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), no. 57785/00, § 43, 10 January 2008, with further references).

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 73049/01

  Budweiser-Streit

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  Indeed, the latter requirement is also one of the positive obligations stemming from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Sovtransavto Holding, cited above, § 96; Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007-I; Kushoglu, cited above, § 47; Freitag, cited above, § 54; and Marini, cited above, § 171).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  The existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile does not absolve an applicant from having to use his or her recourse to it (see, among other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 37, Series A no. 40; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; and Kamburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 14336/05, § 61 in fine, 6 January 2011).
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01

  MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  The existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile does not absolve an applicant from having to use his or her recourse to it (see, among other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 37, Series A no. 40; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; and Kamburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 14336/05, § 61 in fine, 6 January 2011).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 44277/98

  STRETCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  Moreover, there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the breach (see, among other authorities, Stretch v. the United Kingdom, no. 44277/98, § 47, 24 June 2003).
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 50003/99

  WOLKENBERG AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  Indeed, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate if national law does not allow - or allows only partial - reparation to be made (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV; Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 50003/99, § 76, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); Todorova and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, § 7; and Kushoglu (just satisfaction), cited above, § 9).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99

  TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, § 8 in limine, 24 April 2008; and Kushoglu v. Bulgaria (just satisfaction), no. 48191/99, §§ 11-15, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 71835/01

  PATRIKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  If domestic law and the nature of the injury suffered by the applicant make such reparation possible, the Court takes that into consideration under Article 41, sometimes applying an appropriate reduction of the just satisfaction award (see Todorova and Others (just satisfaction), cited above, §§ 43-46, and contrast De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 20, Series A no. 14), and sometimes declining to make any award at all (see Patrikova v. Bulgaria, no. 71835/01, §§ 113 and 115, 4 March 2010).
• EGMR, 06.01.2011 - 14336/05

  KAMBUROV v. BULGARIA (II)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 17854/04

  The existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile does not absolve an applicant from having to use his or her recourse to it (see, among other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 37, Series A no. 40; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; and Kamburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 14336/05, § 61 in fine, 6 January 2011).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 30190/06

  Vollstreckungsimmunität von ausländische Staaten in dem Hoheitsgebiet des …
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99

  CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 71186/01

  FUKLEV v. UKRAINE
• EKMR, 12.10.1982 - 8588/79

  BRAMELID and MALMSTRÖM v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 27940/07

  TUNNEL REPORT LIMITED c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.06.2013 - 72034/01

  DRUZSTEVNÍ ZÁLOZNA PRIA AND OTHERS AND ANOTHER CASE AGAINST THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 41760/04

  KOSTIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 30380/03

  LISEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 9161/02

  KOUNCHEVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 27640/02

  MAZNYAK c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 33726/03

  TSONYO TSONEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 25354/94

  NURAY SEN v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05

  CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 46336/99

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93

  OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE
• EKMR, 15.03.1984 - 9905/82

  ASSOCIATION A. ET H. c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 57049/00

  YÜKSEL ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 59857/00

  BENNICH-ZALEWSKI v. POLAND

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  In so far as they consisted in the possibility of bringing tort claims against private persons, they are in any event not relevant for assessing compliance with the exhaustion rule (see Zlínsat, spol. s r.o., v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 55 in fine, 15 June 2006), but concern the procedural duties under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, §§ 84 and 86, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  Moreover, since the issue raised by Mr Simeonov - the conditions in Burgas Prison - was also raised by Mr Tsekov and Mr Zlatev, and since Mr Simeonov is no longer incarcerated, respect for human rights does not require the Court to continue examining his application by reference to Article 37 § 1 in fine (see, mutatis mutandis, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 34 and 36, ECHR 2000-III; Stec and Others, cited above, § 32; Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 46336/99, § 32, 24 November 2005; and Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 62, 20 September 2011).
• EuGH, 05.05.2022 - C-83/20

  Die der Maßnahme zur Abwicklung der Banco Espírito Santo zugrundeliegende …

  Ferner geht aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 zur EMRK hervor, dass Anteile und auf den Kapitalmärkten handelbare Anleihen als Vermögensgegenstände anzusehen sind, die in den Genuss des durch Art. 1 gewährleisteten Schutzes kommen können (EGMR, 20. September 2011, Shesti Mai Engineering OOD u. a./Bulgarien, Nr. 17854/04, § 77; EGMR, 21. Juli 2016, Mamatas u. a./Griechenland, CE:ECHR:2016:0721JUD006306614, § 90; EGMR, 19. November 2020, Project-trade d.o.o./Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2020:1119JUD000192014, § 75).

 
• EGMR, 02.04.2024 - 21743/15

  NIKOLAY KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA

  Indeed, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate, if national law does not allow - or allows only partial - reparation to be made (see, among other authorities, Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV; Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 101, 20 September 2011; and Kryvenkyy v. Ukraine, no. 43768/07, § 52, 16 February 2017).
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  MICROINTELECT OOD v. BULGARIA

  Among these, account should be taken of the company's reputation, uncertainty in planning and decision making, disruption in the management of the company and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, anxiety and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team (see, among other authorities, Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, §§ 32-36, ECHR 2000-IV, and Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 115, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 11472/04

  HRISTOVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Il doit en outre y avoir un lien de causalité entre le dommage allégué et la violation constatée (voir Shesti Mai Engineering OOD et autres c. Bulgarie, no 17854/04, § 101, 20 septembre 2011, et les références citées).
• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 24314/13

  FISCHER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Furthermore, according to the Court's established case-law, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 86, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 06.08.2020 - 49725/11

  WCISLO AND CABAJ v. POLAND

  The nature and extent of the just satisfaction to be afforded by the Court under Article 41 of the Convention directly depend on the nature of the breach (see Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 101, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 663/11

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  It has on a number of occasions refused to award such compensation in view of the individual circumstances of the case (see Grande Oriente d'Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy, no. 35972/97, § 38, ECHR 2001-VIII; Immobiliare Sole S.r.l. v. Italy, no. 32766/96, § 30, 19 December 2002; Soc. De.ro.sa. v. Italy, no. 64449/01, § 33, 4 December 2003; and Elia S.r.l. v. Italy (just satisfaction), no. 37710/97, § 30, 22 July 2004), in particular to applicant companies wholly owned by other applicants who have claimed and been awarded compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in their own right (see Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 115, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  GHERARDI MARTIRI v. SAN MARINO

  In ascertaining whether those requirements have been satisfied, the Court must take a comprehensive view of the applicable procedures (see Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17854/04, § 79, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 66209/10

  HUNGUEST ZRT v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 20148/09

  RIGOLIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 20116/08

  RAHMANI ET DINEVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 47996/17

  X c. BULGARIE
• EGMR - 58236/21 (anhängig)

  BLT ENERJI ELEKTRIK ENERJISI TOPTAN SATI?ž SAN. VE TIC. A.S. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 52906/17

  Y c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 42416/18

  SEBELEVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 12509/13

  PANAYOTOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA