Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DINCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DINCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  Thus, the decision to grant or refuse reopening in those cases was closely linked to the assessment of the relevant facts in the dispute, an issue on which this Court would as a rule defer to the national courts as it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 20, § 43, and the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 21, § 66; see also Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 48 confirming in its entirety the Chamber findings and in particular § 54 of the Chamber judgment, 27 October 2004; and, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 82, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  By failing to seek reopening of the proceedings domestically, the applicant did not give the national authorities the opportunity to put the alleged violation right, in line with the spirit and aim of subsidiary protection under the Convention system (see, among other authorities, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 72, Series A no. 39, and Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 36, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  Thus, the decision to grant or refuse reopening in those cases was closely linked to the assessment of the relevant facts in the dispute, an issue on which this Court would as a rule defer to the national courts as it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 20, § 43, and the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 21, § 66; see also Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 48 confirming in its entirety the Chamber findings and in particular § 54 of the Chamber judgment, 27 October 2004; and, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 82, ECHR 2007-III).

 
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  Thus, the decision to grant or refuse reopening in those cases was closely linked to the assessment of the relevant facts in the dispute, an issue on which this Court would as a rule defer to the national courts as it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 20, § 43, and the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 21, § 66; see also Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 48 confirming in its entirety the Chamber findings and in particular § 54 of the Chamber judgment, 27 October 2004; and, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 82, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 22.01.2002 - 48662/99

  RIEDL-RIEDENSTEIN and OTHERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  Admittedly, with respect to final judgments delivered by national courts, the Court has repeatedly held that a request for reopening of proceedings on the basis of new evidence is not an effective remedy for the purposes of complying with the admissibility criteria under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vainio v. Finland (dec.), no. 62123/09, 3 May 2011; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002; and Babinsky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 35833/97, 11 January 2000).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

  WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  The Court notes in this connection the following: (1) the request for reopening was directly accessible to the applicant as a party to the completed proceedings and it did not depend on the discretion of any public authority to ask for it (contrary to the applicant's situation in the case of Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 33 and § 56, ECHR 2003-IX, where the power to bring review proceedings in respect of final judgments lay solely with several public officials and not with the parties to the proceedings; see to this effect also Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, ECHR 2010, § 122); (2) that remedy was specifically provided for in law and the possibility to use it was circumscribed to a relatively short period in time (three months from learning about the reason, see paragraph 14 above, unlike the applicant's situation in the case of Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 62, ECHR 1999-VII, where applications for review of final judgments were not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely; see also, similarly, Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009); (3) the grounds for reopening were exhaustively enumerated and those included the situation in which the present applicant found himself, namely where "in breach of the relevant rules the party has been deprived of the opportunity to take part in the proceedings and has not been adequately represented, or when the party could not appear in person or be represented before the court for reasons beyond that party's control" (see paragraph 16 above); (4) it was the only legal avenue through which the State could have put matters right in its own legal system and thus reinforced in practice the subsidiary role of the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sobczyk (dec.), cited above, § 56); and (5) there is no reason to believe that it would not afford the applicant the opportunity to obtain redress for his grievance or that it would have no reasonable prospect of success (see Brusco, cited above).
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 62123/09

  VAINIO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  Admittedly, with respect to final judgments delivered by national courts, the Court has repeatedly held that a request for reopening of proceedings on the basis of new evidence is not an effective remedy for the purposes of complying with the admissibility criteria under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vainio v. Finland (dec.), no. 62123/09, 3 May 2011; Riedl-Riedenstein and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 48662/99, 22 January 2002; and Babinsky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 35833/97, 11 January 2000).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 27451/09

  NAGOVITSYN AND NALGIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  27451/09 and 60650/09, §§ 24 and 30, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  Thus, the decision to grant or refuse reopening in those cases was closely linked to the assessment of the relevant facts in the dispute, an issue on which this Court would as a rule defer to the national courts as it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 20, § 43, and the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 21, § 66; see also Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 48 confirming in its entirety the Chamber findings and in particular § 54 of the Chamber judgment, 27 October 2004; and, Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 82, ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 17220/09

  By failing to seek reopening of the proceedings domestically, the applicant did not give the national authorities the opportunity to put the alleged violation right, in line with the spirit and aim of subsidiary protection under the Convention system (see, among other authorities, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 72, Series A no. 39, and Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 36, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 24697/14

  G I SERVICE OOD v. BULGARIA

  Crucially, the quashing of the final judgment in the present case cannot be said to have been the only means by which the respondent State could have put matters right through its own legal system (contrast with Dinchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 17220/09, § 28, 21 November 2017), given that the applicant was able to raise its argument before both judicial instances in the regular judicial proceedings.