Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) (Conditional);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2017, 1755

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 21861/03

  HAMER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  The intended demolition of the house will in turn amount to an interference with the first applicant's possessions (see Allard v. Sweden, no. 35179/97, § 50, ECHR 2003-VII, and Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 77, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)).

  This judgment does not sufficiently distinguish the facts of the present case from earlier cases concerning the enforcement of demolition orders for planning offences, which were examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and in which no violation was found, notably Hamer v. Belgium (no. 21861/03, ECHR 2007-V (extracts)), which concerned a building in existence for twenty-seven years before the planning offence was recorded and for a further ten years before it was demolished, and the more recent (Grand Chamber) case of Depalle (cited above), which concerned a family home near a public beach that had been in existence since 1969 on the basis of authorisations limited in time and which ceased with the enactment of specific coastal planning laws following which an order to demolish was made (no separate issue under Article 8).

• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 30856/03

  KRYVITSKA AND KRYVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  On this point, the case bears considerable resemblance with cases concerning the eviction of tenants from public housing (see McCann, cited above; Cosic, cited above; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 37341/06, 21 September 2010; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, 2 December 2010; Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 6571/04, 3 February 2011; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012), and cases concerning the eviction of occupiers from publicly owned land (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004; Yordanova and Others, cited above; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  This means that a measure must be both appropriate for achieving its aim and not disproportionate to that aim (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 50, Series A no. 98).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  This being the case in Bulgaria (see paragraph 44 above, and compare Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 7984/06, § 62, 20 October 2015, and contrast Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 22, Series A no. 59, and Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 38, 14 February 2008), the Court accepts that the costs claimed were actually incurred by the applicants, even if for the time being no payments have taken place.
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7097/10

  GLADYSHEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  An analogy may also be drawn with cases concerning evictions from properties previously owned by the applicants but lost by them as a result of civil proceedings brought by a private person, civil proceedings brought by a public body, or tax enforcement proceedings (see, respectively, Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, 16 July 2009 (proceedings brought by a creditor); Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013 (proceedings brought by the true owner of the premises); Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011 (proceedings brought by a municipal body); and Rousk v. Sweden, no. 27183/04, 25 July 2013 (tax enforcement proceedings)).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 28261/06

  COSIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  It is therefore "home" for both of them (see, among other authorities, Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, §§ 36-39, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts); McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 46, ECHR 2008; Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, §§ 102-03, 24 April 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, § 141, 17 October 2013), and the order for its demolition amounts to an interference with their right to respect for that home (see, mutatis mutandis, Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, § 18, 15 January 2009; Yordanova and Others, cited above, § 104; and Winterstein and Others, cited above, § 143).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 7177/10

  BREZEC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  An analogy may also be drawn with cases concerning evictions from properties previously owned by the applicants but lost by them as a result of civil proceedings brought by a private person, civil proceedings brought by a public body, or tax enforcement proceedings (see, respectively, Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, 16 July 2009 (proceedings brought by a creditor); Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, 18 July 2013 (proceedings brought by the true owner of the premises); Gladysheva v. Russia, no. 7097/10, 6 December 2011 (proceedings brought by a municipal body); and Rousk v. Sweden, no. 27183/04, 25 July 2013 (tax enforcement proceedings)).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  PAULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  On this point, the case bears considerable resemblance with cases concerning the eviction of tenants from public housing (see McCann, cited above; Cosic, cited above; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 37341/06, 21 September 2010; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, 2 December 2010; Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 6571/04, 3 February 2011; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012), and cases concerning the eviction of occupiers from publicly owned land (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004; Yordanova and Others, cited above; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 6571/04

  IGOR VASILCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  On this point, the case bears considerable resemblance with cases concerning the eviction of tenants from public housing (see McCann, cited above; Cosic, cited above; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 37341/06, 21 September 2010; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, 2 December 2010; Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 6571/04, 3 February 2011; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012), and cases concerning the eviction of occupiers from publicly owned land (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004; Yordanova and Others, cited above; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  On this point, the case bears considerable resemblance with cases concerning the eviction of tenants from public housing (see McCann, cited above; Cosic, cited above; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 37341/06, 21 September 2010; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, 2 December 2010; Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 6571/04, 3 February 2011; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012), and cases concerning the eviction of occupiers from publicly owned land (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004; Yordanova and Others, cited above; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 30782/16

  SIMONOVA v. BULGARIA

  The statutory provisions and case-law relating to the issuing and enforcement of orders for the demolition of unlawfully erected buildings have been set out in Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria (no. 46577/15, §§ 25-40, 21 April 2016) and Aydarov and Others v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 33586/15, §§ 41-43, 2 October 2018).

  Although there is no information about when exactly after 2009 the building was erected and when the applicant and her children moved in (see paragraph 5 above), the period of nearly one year between March 2014 and March 2015 - when the mayor issued the demolition order at issue in the present case (see paragraph 11 above) - is long enough to accept that the applicant's links with the building were sufficient and continuous, so that it qualified as her "home" (compare Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 8, 12 and 49, 21 April 2016; Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, no. 10613/16, §§ 9, 11 and 112, 11 January 2018; and Ghailan and Others v. Spain, no. 36366/14, § 55, 23 March 2021, and contrast Zabor v. Poland (dec.), no. 33690/06, § 74, 7 January 2014).

• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 18269/18

  KRACHUNOVA v. BULGARIA

  Fees payable under a conditional-fee agreement - such as the agreement between the applicant and her lawyer - are deemed to have been actually incurred if that agreement is enforceable in the respective jurisdiction, which is the case in Bulgaria (see Merabishvili, cited above, § 371, and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 89, 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 42126/15

  O.J. AND J.O. v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  48205/99 and 2 others, § 27, 14 May 2002; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 38, 14 February 2008; Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 7984/06, § 62, 20 October 2015; and Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 89, 21 April 2016).

 
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54490/10

  ZHIDOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Quant au type d'ingérence et à la norme applicable, la Cour considère qu'il s'agissait d'une mesure de règlementation de l'usage des biens au sens du second alinéa de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 (Saliba, précité, §§ 27-28, 8 novembre 2005, Hamer, précité, § 60, Ivanova et Cherkezov c. Bulgarie, no 46577/15, § 69, 21 avril 2016, et Mkhchyan, précité, § 70).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 9418/13

  KARTOYEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Elle note que les conventions d'assistance juridique conclues par K. avec Me O. ne liaient pas juridiquement les requérants et que rien ne démontre qu'ils soient tenus de rembourser K. en tant que tiers ayant supporté les frais afférents à leur représentation devant la Cour (voir, a contrario, Ivanova et Cherkezov c. Bulgarie, no 46577/15, § 89, 21 avril 2016).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 40482/06

  ASSOCIATION CULTUELLE ISLAMIQUE MOSQUÉE NO. 34 c. RUSSIE

  Dans ces circonstances, de l'avis de la Cour, les travaux de construction des bâtiments litigieux étaient manifestement contraires aux dispositions internes en vigueur (Saliba c. Malte, no 4251/02, § 46, 8 novembre 2005, et Ivanova et Cherkezov c. Bulgarie, no 46577/15, § 75, 21 avril 2016, Zhidov et autres, précité, § 105, et voir aussi, pour un exemple récent, Podoynitsyn c. Russie (déc.) [comité], no 30495/13, § 71, 22 septembre 2020), de sorte que l'injonction de démolition apparaît nécessaire et justifiée.
• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 30495/13

  PODOYNITSYN c. RUSSIE

  En l'espèce, la Cour note qu'en droit russe, les constructions illégales ne constituent pas des « biens'et ne peuvent pas faire l'objet de propriété (voir, a contrario, Ivanova et Cherkezov c. Bulgarie, no 46577/15, § 68, 21 avril 2016), et que l'enregistrement du droit de propriété sur un bien immobilier ne représente pas un obstacle à ce que celui-ci puisse être ultérieurement qualifié de construction illégale (paragraphes 48 et 50 a) ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 67312/12

  FIRSTOV c. RUSSIE

  Rien ne démontre que le requérant soit tenu de rembourser son père en tant que tiers ayant supporté les frais afférents à sa représentation devant la Cour (voir, a contrario, Ivanova et Cherkezov c. Bulgarie, no 46577/15, § 89, 21 avril 2016) ou que le requérant et son père forment un foyer commun de sorte que les dépenses effectuées par un des deux puissent être considérées comme communes (voir, a contrario, Ilascu et autres c. Moldova et Russie [GC], no 48787/99, § 491, CEDH 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 76202/16

  F.J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It has also been applied by the Court in cases concerning the judicial sale of property to pay creditors (see, for example, Zehentner v. Austria, no. 20082/02, 16 July 2009 and Rousk v. Sweden, no. 27183/04, 25 July 2013), and, more recently, in a case concerning an application by the National Building Control Directorate for the demolition of a property built without the appropriate permit (see Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 54 21 April 2016).
• EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 19839/21

  L.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, while that may be so in the sphere of housing where the interference consists in the loss of a person's only home (see, for example, Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, § 54 21 April 2016), that was not the case here.
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 57964/08

  KOTUMANOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 40087/21 (anhängig)

  GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR - 4152/20 (anhängig)

  PAKETOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR - 43381/20 (anhängig)

  PAKETOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR - 47841/20 (anhängig)

  DE JESUS AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 18986/06

  KARAKUTSYA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 6142/16 (anhängig)

  CALDARAR AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR - 61799/15 (anhängig)

  MACAGNINO v. ITALY and 1 other application
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 40046/22

  RUBIO c. FRANCE