Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 47877/99
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  In the instant case, the Court does not consider that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003 and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  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, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  TOTEVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  In the instant case, the Court does not consider that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003 and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004).

 
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

  GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  The possibility to appeal to various authorities in the absence of a specific procedure cannot be regarded as an effective remedy, because such appeals aim to urge the authorities to utilise their discretion and do not give litigants 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. the Czech Republic (dec.), 37527/97, 23 May 2000, Horvat, cited above, §§ 47 and 64 and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  In the instant case, the Court does not consider that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003 and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  On the latter point, what was at stake for the applicants has also to be taken into account (see, among many other authorities, Süßmann v. Germany, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1172-73, § 48 and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  However, while in principle the joint examination of all claims arising out of the same event serves the interests of procedural economy, the Sofia City Court could have severed the third-party claims from the applicants" action when it became aware of the fact that the evidentiary difficulties created by these claims were giving rise to undue delay in the conduct of the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 23, § 61 in fine).
• EGMR, 06.05.1981 - 7759/77

  Buchholz ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  However, this does not absolve the courts from ensuring compliance with the requirement of Article 6 concerning reasonable time (see Buchholz v. Germany, judgment of 6 May 1981, Series A no. 42, p. 16, § 50).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to convince the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, §§ 37-39, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 28898/95

  HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  However, the Court considers that it is not necessary in the present case to examine the question whether a "complaint about delays" under Article 217a of the CCP has to be used in respect of complaints about the length of court proceedings, as even assuming that it might be an effective remedy in this respect, the effectiveness of such a remedy may depend on whether it has a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1), no. 23459/94, § 22, ECHR 2001-I, Holzinger v. Austria (No. 2), no. 28898/95, § 21, 30 January 2001 and Rajak v. Croatia, no. 49706/99, §§ 33-35, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 49706/99

  RAJAK v. CROATIA

• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05

  FINGER v. BULGARIA

  In cases concerning chiefly delays occurring prior to July 1999 the Court did not find it necessary to determine whether the "complaint about delays" was an effective remedy on the basis that even if it was, it had been introduced too late to make up for the delay which had already accrued (see Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 52, 8 July 2004; Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, § 78, 23 September 2004; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, §§ 66, 67 and 100, 23 September 2004; Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 39832/98, § 60, 18 January 2005; Hadjibakalov, cited above, § 61; Babichkin v. Bulgaria, no. 56793/00, § 41, 10 August 2006; Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 54, 28 September 2006; Kuyumdzhiyan v. Bulgaria, no. 77147/01, § 47 in fine, 24 May 2007; Simizov v. Bulgaria, no. 59523/00, §§ 53 and 54, 18 October 2007; Kambourov, cited above, § 80; Jeliazkov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 9143/02, § 49, 3 April 2008; Givezov v. Bulgaria, no. 15154/02, § 38, 22 May 2008; Kuncheva v. Bulgaria, no. 9161/02, § 40, 3 July 2008; Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria, no. 20568/02, § 31, 2 July 2009; Kabakchievi v. Bulgaria, no. 8812/07, § 38, 6 May 2010; Kotseva-Dencheva v. Bulgaria, no. 12499/05, § 28, 10 June 2010; and Rosen Petkov v. Bulgaria, no. 65417/01, § 35, 2 September 2010).

  However, according to the Court's established case-law, such mechanisms cannot be regarded as an effective remedy because they do not give the individuals concerned 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, DR 82, p. 76, at p. 82; Kuchar and Stis v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 37527/97, 23 May 2000; Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII; Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); Djangozov, cited above, § 56; Osmanov and Yuseinov, cited above, § 39; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 101, 23 September 2004; Sidjimov, cited above, § 41; and Sürmeli, cited above, § 109).

  Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, §§ 73-92, 23 September 2004.

• EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 30181/05

  PRUTEANU c. ROUMANIE

  Cependant, en l'espèce, le Gouvernement n'a fourni aucun exemple de jurisprudence qui démontrerait l'effectivité de cette voie de recours (Rachevi c. Bulgarie, no 47877/99, § 64, 23 septembre 2004).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  In the instant case, the Court does not consider that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004 and Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 11, 23 September 2004).

 
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 65965/01

  PAROISSE GRECO-CATHOLIQUE SFANTUL VASILE POLONA c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour estime dès lors qu'une demande fondée sur l'applicabilité directe de la Convention dans le droit roumain ne saurait avoir le degré de certitude juridique requis pour pouvoir constituer un recours effectif au sens de l'article 13 de la Convention (voir, dans le même sens, Doran c. Irlande, no 50389/99, §§ 55-69, CEDH 2003-X (extraits), et Rachevi c. Bulgarie, no 47877/99, § 64, 23 septembre 2004).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 55956/00

  VATEVI v. BULGARIA

  In the instant case, the Court considers that the hourly rate of EUR 70 is excessive and that a reduction of the same is appropriate (see, a contrario, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004, and Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 111, 23 September 2004, where the Court found an hourly rate of EUR 50 reasonable).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  KARCHEVA AND SHTARBOVA v. BULGARIA

  The Court notes that in similar cases against Bulgaria it has found that a complaint based on the direct applicability of the Convention in Bulgarian law is not an effective remedy and neither is a "complaint about delays" under Article 217a of the Code of Civil Procedure (see Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 100, 23 September 2004).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 5131/06

  SHEYTANOV v. BULGARIA

  In view of its extensive and clear case law in respect of the violation of the above mentioned guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of Convention, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008, Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, ECHR 2007-VIII and Mihalkov v. Bulgaria, no. 67719/01, 10 April 2008), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 36823/07

  TSENOVI v. BULGARIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bulgaria, its practice concerning complaints about the non-execution of a final judgment and about one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 33-42, ECHR 2002-III; Mancheva v. Bulgaria, no. 39609/98, §§ 54-68, 30 September 2004; Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, §§ 69-92, 23 September 2004).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 34852/05

  SEMERDZHIEVA v. BULGARIA

  In view of its extensive case-law concerning the length of civil proceedings, including in cases against Bulgaria (see, among many others, Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, 8 July 2004; Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, § 82, 23 September 2004; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008; and Pavlova v. Bulgaria, no. 39855/03, 14 January 2010), the Court is further satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).