Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YORDANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life Respect for home Respect for private life) (Conditional) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage) ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 25446/06
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 25446/06
• EGMR - 25446/06

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  As the Court has stated in the context of Article 14 of the Convention, that provision not only does not prohibit a member State from treating groups differently in order to correct "factual inequalities" between them but, moreover, in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may in itself give rise to a breach of Article 14 (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 175; "Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" v. Belgium (Merits), judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, § 10; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV; and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  41138/98 and 64320/01, §§ 111-14, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  Having regard to the fact that the case concerns the expulsion of the applicants as part of a community of several hundred persons and that this measure could have repercussions on the applicants" lifestyle and social and family ties, it may be considered that the interference would affect not only their "homes", but also their "private and family life" (see, similarly, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-I).

 
• EGMR, 26.06.2001 - 39022/97

  O'ROURKE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  Article 8 does not in terms give a right to be provided with a home (see, Chapman, cited above, § 99) and, accordingly, any positive obligation to house the homeless must be limited (see O'Rourke v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39022/97, ECHR 26 June 2001).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  Furthermore, it follows from the Convention, and from Article 1 in particular, that in ratifying the Convention the Contracting States undertake to ensure that their domestic legislation is compatible with it (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  It is undisputed that Article 14 applies in the present case, seeing that discrimination is alleged in relation to the applicants" right to respect for their homes and private life and, therefore, in respect of issues falling within the ambit of Article 8 (see, for example, E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 47, 22 January 2008, and Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  LARKOS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  It is undisputed that Article 14 applies in the present case, seeing that discrimination is alleged in relation to the applicants" right to respect for their homes and private life and, therefore, in respect of issues falling within the ambit of Article 8 (see, for example, E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 47, 22 January 2008, and Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).

• EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  HUDOROVIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  States are required to take into account the vulnerabilities of Roma communities and even take positive measures to try and accommodate their specific needs and lifestyle (see, among others, Chapman v. UK, [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I, and Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 63141/13

  B.G. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Toutefois, dans des cas exceptionnels, une obligation d'assurer un hébergement aux individus particulièrement vulnérables peut découler de l'article 8 (Yordanova et autres c. Bulgarie, no 25446/06, § 130, 24 avril 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 33295/15

  BARAHONA GUACHAMIN ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  À cet égard, la Cour observe que les faits de l'espèce ne font pas apparaître un problème structurel portant sur l'inexistence ab origine d'un recours ou sur l'existence d'une pratique administrative empêchant les requérants de faire examiner l'équité et la proportionnalité du processus décisionnel suivi par l'Administration (Bagdonavicius et autres c. Russie, no 19841/06, §§ 100-103, 11 octobre 2016, Winterstein et autres c. France, no 27013/07, § 148, 17 octobre 2013, et Yordanova et autres c. Bulgarie, no 25446/06, § 118, 24 avril 2012).

 
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 24720/13

  HIRTU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Rappelant la jurisprudence de la Cour sur l'article 8 de la Convention telle qu'elle ressort notamment des arrêts Winterstein précité et Yordanova et autres c. Bulgarie (no 25446/06, 24 avril 2012), il souligne que l'examen de proportionnalité opéré par les juges nationaux est fluctuant et dépend de la juridiction saisie et que le contrôle a posteriori du juge administratif demeure insuffisant, celui-ci se limitant à constater l'illégalité de l'occupation et la menace à l'ordre public, sans examen de la proportionnalité de la mesure.
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 34129/03

  MICROINTELECT OOD v. BULGARIA

  As for the question whether the applicable domestic legislation meets the relevant Convention requirements, the Court will examine it below in the context of the question whether the interference was necessary for the achievement of the legitimate aim pursued (see, for a similar approach and mutatis mutandis, Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, § 108, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 9437/12

  AHMADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Therefore, if the person concerned contests the proportionality of the interference on the basis of such arguments, the courts must examine them carefully and give adequate reasons in relation to them (see McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, § 118 (iv) in fine, 24 April 2012; and Ivanova and Cherkezov, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR - 40087/21 (anhängig)

  GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  If so, was the order to demolish that building in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (see Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, §§ 107-44, 24 April 2012; Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 53-55, 21 April 2016; and Simonova v. Bulgaria, no. 30782/16, § 48, 11 April 2023)? In particular, was the buildings the applicants' only home?.
• EGMR - 4152/20 (anhängig)

  PAKETOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  If so, were the orders to demolish those buildings in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (see Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, §§ 107-44, 24 April 2012; Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 53-55, 21 April 2016; and Simonova v. Bulgaria, no. 30782/16, § 48, 11 April 2023)? In particular, were those buildings the applicants' only homes?.
• EGMR - 43381/20 (anhängig)

  PAKETOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  If so, were the orders to demolish those buildings in breach of Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (see Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, §§ 107-44, 24 April 2012; Ivanova and Cherkezov v. Bulgaria, no. 46577/15, §§ 53-55, 21 April 2016; and Simonova v. Bulgaria, no. 30782/16, § 48, 11 April 2023)? In particular, were those buildings the applicants' only homes?.
• EGMR, 23.03.2021 - 36366/14

  GHAILAN AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

  The Court reiterates that Article 8 does not recognise, as such, a right to be provided with a home (see, among other authorities, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 99, ECHR 2001-I; Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, § 130, 24 April 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, § 159, 17 October 2013), and cannot be construed as conferring a right to live in a particular location (see Garib v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 43494/09, § 141, 6 November 2017, and further references therein).