Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 9808/02
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

Wird zitiert von ... (33)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  EINHORN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  In the case of Einhorn v. France ((dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI) the Court had an occasion to address the issue whether criminal proceedings conducted in absentia represent a "denial of justice".
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  In addition, relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Assanidzé v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, ECHR 2004-II), the applicant requested the Court to specify in the operative provisions of its judgment that the respondent Government should secure his release at the earliest possible date.

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to recall the case-law according to which, when the Court finds that an applicant has been convicted despite the existence of an infringement of his or her right to take part in his or her trial, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be to reopen the proceedings in due course and retry the person concerned in keeping with all the requirements of a fair trial (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  For instance, in a series of cases against the United Kingdom concerning indeterminate prison sentences, Article 5 § 4 was considered applicable even after a conviction, because the legality of the detention depended on factors which were not incorporated in the original conviction and sentence (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, pp. 28-29, §§ 55-59, Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A, pp. 25-30, §§ 65-78, Hussain v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, pp. 267-70, §§ 47-54, and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 119, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85

  THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  For instance, in a series of cases against the United Kingdom concerning indeterminate prison sentences, Article 5 § 4 was considered applicable even after a conviction, because the legality of the detention depended on factors which were not incorporated in the original conviction and sentence (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, pp. 28-29, §§ 55-59, Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A, pp. 25-30, §§ 65-78, Hussain v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, pp. 267-70, §§ 47-54, and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 119, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  It is of capital importance that a criminal defendant should appear, both because of his or her right to a hearing and because of the need to verify the accuracy of his or her statements and compare them with those of the victim - whose interests need to be protected - and of the witnesses (see Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 15, § 35, and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 86, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  F.C.B. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  This conclusion is in line with the established case-law confirming that the right of an accused to participate in person in the proceedings is a fundamental element of a fair trial (see Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 27, F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, § 33, T. v. Italy, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, § 26, Yavuz v. Austria, no. 46549/99, § 45, 27 May 2004, and Novoselov v. Russia (dec.), no. 66460/01, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  Article 5 § 4 was likewise considered applicable in the case of Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium (judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, pp. 23-27, §§ 44-49), in respect of the Belgian system of placing recidivists and habitual offenders at the Government's disposal.
• EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88

  T. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  This conclusion is in line with the established case-law confirming that the right of an accused to participate in person in the proceedings is a fundamental element of a fair trial (see Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 27, F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, § 33, T. v. Italy, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, § 26, Yavuz v. Austria, no. 46549/99, § 45, 27 May 2004, and Novoselov v. Russia (dec.), no. 66460/01, 8 July 2004).

• BVerfG, 15.12.2015 - 2 BvR 2735/14

  Gewährleistung einzelfallbezogenen Grundrechtsschutzes im Rahmen der …

  Umgekehrt führt die Weigerung des Gerichts, das Verfahren wiederzueröffnen, im Falle einer Abwesenheitsverurteilung - von den erwähnten Ausnahmen abgesehen - regelmäßig zu einem Verstoß gegen Art. 6 EMRK und die ihm zugrunde gelegten Prinzipien (vgl. EGMR, Stoichkov v. Bulgarien, Urteil vom 24. März 2005, Nr. 9808/02, § 56).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 8139/09

  Othman (Abu Qatada) ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  It would be unreasonable if that applicant could not then rely on Article 5 to prevent his extradition (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, §§ 51-56, 24 March 2005; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 461-464, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 26374/18

  GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND

  Another context is that of a "flagrant denial of justice" leading to the conclusion that the resulting conviction cannot justify a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 a) of the Convention (see, among others, Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, § 110, Series A no. 240; Ila?Ÿcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 461, ECHR 2004-VII; Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 51, 24 March 2005; Hammerton v. the United Kingdom, no. 6287/10, § 98, 17 March 2016; and Gumeniuc v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 48829/06, § 24, 16 May 2017).

 
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 71723/10

  SÂNCRAIAN c. ROUMANIE

  Elle se référa également aux conclusions de la Cour dans les arrêts Sejdovic c. Italie ([GC], no 56581/00, CEDH 2006-II) et Stoichkov c. Bulgarie (no 9808/02, arrêt du 24 mars 2005).

  Il argue enfin de ce que la situation dans la présente affaire diffère de celle de l'affaire Stoichkov c. Bulgarie (no 9808/02, 24 mars 2005), dans laquelle la demande de réouverture de la procédure de condamnation par contumace avait été refusée.

  De plus, la Cour a estimé que l'obligation de garantir à l'accusé le droit d'être présent dans la salle d'audience - soit pendant la première procédure à son encontre, soit au cours d'un nouveau procès - est l'un des éléments essentiels de l'article 6 (Stoichkov c. Bulgarie, no 9808/02, § 56, 24 mars 2005).

• EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 41015/04

  KABOULOV v. UKRAINE

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).

  Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 72, 24 March 2005).

• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  HARKINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  These have included: conviction in absentia with no subsequent possibility of a fresh determination of the merits of the charge (see Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005; and Sejdovic, cited above § 84); a trial which is summary in nature and conducted with a total disregard for the rights of the defence (see Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden, no. 13284/04, § 47, ECHR 2005-XI); detention without any access to an independent and impartial tribunal to have the legality of the detention reviewed (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), 35865/03, § 101, 20 February 2007); a deliberate and systematic refusal of access to a lawyer, especially for an individual detained in a foreign country (ibid.); and the use in criminal proceedings of statements obtained as a result of torture of the accused or a third person in breach of Article 3 (see Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 267, ECHR 2012 (extracts) and El Haski v. Belgium, 649/08, § 85, 25 September 2012).
• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 49418/09

  GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  In two judgments given in 2001 and 2007 (Ñ?µÑ?. â?? 233 oÑ? 19.06.2001 ³. ¿o ½. ´. â?? 173/2001 ³., ??., I ½. o., and Ñ?µÑ?. â?? 76 oÑ? 12.04.2007 ³. ¿o ½. ´. â?? 759/2006 ³., ??., II ½. o., cited respectively in Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 33, 24 March 2005, and in Stoyanov-Kobuladze, cited above, § 22), the Supreme Court of Cassation held that the destruction of the case file of the original proceedings precluded reopening under Article 362a § 1.

  Imprisonment pursuant to a "conviction" handed down in proceedings conducted in absentia whose reopening it is impossible to obtain cannot be justified under Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, §§ 51-59, 24 March 2005; Willcox and Hurford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 68490/01

  STANKOV v. BULGARIA

  En particulier, l'exercice du droit à réparation consacré par le paragraphe 5 de l'article 5 suppose qu'une violation de l'un des paragraphes précédents de cette disposition ait été constatée par une autorité interne ou par la Cour (voir, par exemple, Stoichkov c. Bulgarie, no 9808/02, § 72, 24 mars 2005) et le droit d'indemnisation garanti par l'article 3 du Protocole no 7 - lequel, au demeurant, n'était pas en vigueur à l'égard de la Bulgarie à l'époque pertinente - s'applique aux peines prononcées à l'issue de condamnations pénales entachées d'erreur judiciaire.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.03.2022 - C-420/20

  HN (Procès d'un accusé éloigné du territoire)

  Wegen Aufenthalts im Ausland vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 24. März 2005, Stoichkov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2005:0324JUD000980802), in dem ein Verstoß gegen diesen Artikel der EMRK festgestellt wurde.
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  SOLDATENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 18233/16

  ETUTE c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 28263/09

  BARATTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 69591/14

  KOLEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 6287/10

  HAMMERTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 71545/11

  IVAN TODOROV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 50027/08

  PETKOV AND PROFIROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2011 - 29912/05

  SHULGIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 4099/12

  YEGER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 44704/11

  POPOVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  JGHARKAVA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 2929/05

  SVETLORUSOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 80563/12

  NASTASE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 3299/05

  USTYANTSEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 24379/02

  KOUNOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2019 - 39718/09

  KERESELIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA