Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 52367/99
• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  The Court reiterates at the outset that it is not its function to deal with errors of law allegedly committed by a national court (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 01.03.2002 - 48778/99

  KUTIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  The Court considers that the applicant undoubtedly sustained a moral prejudice on account of the violation found in the present case (see Kutic v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 39, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  ZEHNALOVÁ ET ZEHNAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  Nor is it competent to review the Contracting Parties' compliance with instruments other than the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols, even if other international treaties may provide it with a source of inspiration (see Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V).

 
• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  H. v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  As regards procedural guarantees, it appears that the commissions had no clear rules of procedure (see H v. Belgium, judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B, p. 35, § 53), did not hold public hearings, and decided solely on the basis of a medical examination of the person concerned and of medical documents (see paragraph 21 above).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  Under Article 6 § 1 it is necessary that, in the determination of civil rights and obligations, decisions taken by administrative authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article be subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction (see Fischer v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, p. 17, § 28).
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 14399/88

  MASSA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  It is also beyond doubt that the pension and the related benefits, which were purely economic in nature, were civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Francesco Lombardo, cited above, pp. 26-27, § 17, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46, and Massa v. Italy, judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  It is also beyond doubt that the pension and the related benefits, which were purely economic in nature, were civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see Francesco Lombardo, cited above, pp. 26-27, § 17, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 17, § 46, and Massa v. Italy, judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-B, p. 20, § 26).
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  Referring to the cases of Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands (judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99), Deumeland v. Germany (judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100) and Francesco Lombardo v. Italy (judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A), the applicant's heirs submitted that social security rights which were not the result of a discretionary decision by a state authority but were determined on the basis of criteria contained in the law, such as those in issue in the present case, were civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

  DEMICOLI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  According to the Court's settled case-law, a tribunal within the meaning of that provision must satisfy a series of requirements - independence, in particular of the executive, impartiality, duration of its members' terms of office, and guarantees afforded by its procedure - several of which appear in the text of Article 6 § 1 itself (see Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 29, § 64, Demicoli v. Malta, judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 18, § 39, and Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 233, ECHR 2001-IV).
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81

  Deumeland ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  Referring to the cases of Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands (judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99), Deumeland v. Germany (judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 100) and Francesco Lombardo v. Italy (judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A), the applicant's heirs submitted that social security rights which were not the result of a discretionary decision by a state authority but were determined on the basis of criteria contained in the law, such as those in issue in the present case, were civil rights within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79

  FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS

• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 40908/05

  FAZLIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  It is noteworthy in this connection that in other cases the Supreme Administrative Court held that an assessment of mental fitness for work which prompts the dismissal of an officer employed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs should be amenable to judicial scrutiny even if it touches upon national security, and that in May 2006 the law was changed to provide for direct judicial review of the mental fitness assessments of all members of the Ministry's staff (see paragraphs 35, 36 and 40-43 above and, mutatis mutandis, Mihailov v. Bulgaria, no. 52367/99, § 38, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 17.05.2005 - 74456/01

  HORVATHOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  In fact, human rights cases before the Court generally also have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may have a legitimate interest in seeing to it that justice is done even after the applicant's death (see, with further references, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, §§ 22 and 25, ECHR 2003-IX and Mihailov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 52367/99, 9 September 2004).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 58385/13

  LJAJIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has previously accepted that the late applicants" close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention provided they have a sufficient interest in so doing (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Mihailov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 52367/99, 9 September 2004; Stojkovic v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 14818/02, § 26, 8 November 2007; and Grosz v. France (dec.), no. 14717/06, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 57252/13

  NUHOVIC AND KURTANOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has previously accepted that the late applicants" close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention provided they have a sufficient interest in so doing (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Mihailov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 52367/99, 9 September 2004; Stojkovic v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 14818/02, § 26, 8 November 2007; and Grosz v. France (dec.), no. 14717/06, 16 June 2009).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 18372/07

  GUDURIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has previously accepted that the late applicants" close relatives could maintain applications with complaints concerning various aspects of Article 6 of the Convention provided they have a sufficient interest in so doing (see Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A; Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003; Mihailov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 52367/99, 9 September 2004; Stojkovic v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 14818/02, § 26, 8 November 2007; and Grosz v. France (dec.), no. 14717/06, 16 June 2009).