Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MITEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to the right to be brought promptly before a judge Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to the length of detention on remand Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.11.2000 - 40063/98
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 40063/98
• EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  Having regard to the criteria established in its case-law for the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings (see, among many others, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II), the Court finds that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on at least some of the charges that eventually formed the petty thefts case against him failed to satisfy the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  Where such grounds were relevant and sufficient, the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  However, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  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, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bulgarian courts" practice at the relevant time are summarised in the Court's judgments in several similar cases (see, among others, the Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, §§ 25-36, ECHR 1999-II; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 55-62, 26 July 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 79-88, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

  GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  In particular, the possibility to complain to the various levels of the prosecution authorities cannot be regarded as an effective remedy because such hierarchical complaints aim to urge the authorities to utilise their discretion and do not give the accused a personal right to compel the State to exercise its supervisory powers (see Gibas v. Poland, no. 24559/94, Commission decision of 6 September 1995, Decisions and Reports 82, p. 76, at p. 82, Kuchar and Stis v. Czech Republic (dec.), 37527/97, 23 May 2000, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, §§ 47 and 64, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  OSMANOV AND YUSEINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  As the Court found in its Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria judgment (nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-42, 23 September 2004) at the relevant time there was no formal remedy under Bulgarian law that could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant.

• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Dans son arrêt Mitev c. Bulgarie (no 40063/98, 22 décembre 2004), elle a déclaré:.

  Il apparaît que la Cour a également raisonné de la même manière dans certaines affaires où la détention provisoire du requérant avant son jugement en première instance n'était pas continue, sans pour autant indiquer explicitement pourquoi elle considérait les périodes de détention comme un tout (Letellier c. France, 26 juin 1991, § 34, série A no 207, Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 66, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits) ; et Mitev c. Bulgarie, no 40063/98, § 102, 22 décembre 2004).

• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 35104/02

  DEGERATU c. ROUMANIE

  Compte tenu de ce qui précède, la période de détention provisoire qui sera examinée par la Cour a donc duré deux ans, un mois et vingt jours (I.A. c. France, 23 septembre 1998, § 98, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VII ; Vaccaro c. Italie, no 41852/98, §§ 31-33, 16 novembre 2000 ; Mitev c. Bulgarie, no 40063/98, § 102, 22 décembre 2004 et Solmaz c. Turquie, no 27561/02, § 29, CEDH 2007-II (extraits)).

  Dès lors, la Cour estime qu'il n'est pas établi que le requérant avait à sa disposition, au niveau national, la possibilité d'obtenir réparation pour sa privation de liberté contraire à l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (Mitev c. Bulgarie, no 40063/98, §§ 132-138, 22 décembre 2004).

• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 921/03

  BORDIKOV v. RUSSIA

  It appears that the Court has also adhered to this approach in some cases where an applicant's detention pending trial before a first-instance court was not continuous, without, however, setting out explicitly the reasons why it considered such periods cumulatively (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 34, Series A no. 207; Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), and Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, § 102, 22 December 2004).