Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DANOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies six month period) Violations of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  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 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV and Ilijkov, cited above, §§ 67-87).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures complained of, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I).

 
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  Accordingly, the Court reiterates that in previous judgments which concerned the system of detention pending trial, as it existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, it had found that neither investigators before whom the accused persons were brought, nor prosecutors who approved detention orders, could be considered as "officer[s] authorised by law to exercise judicial power" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3298-99, § 144-50; Nikolova, cited above, §§ 49-53, and Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the "CCP") and the Bulgarian courts' practice at the relevant time are summarised in the Court's judgments in several similar cases (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, §§ 25-36, ECHR 1999-II; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 55-59, 26 July 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 79-88, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 50358/99

  PEKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  The fact that the form of the applicant's deprivation of liberty mutated from pre-trial detention to house arrest - which also falls within the scope of Article 5 (see Mancini v. Italy, no. 44955/98, § 17, ECHR 2001-IX, Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, §§ 64 and 70, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts), and Nikolova v. Bulgaria (No. 2), no. 40896/98, §§ 60 and 74, 30 September 2004) - appears to be of no relevance, as it did not put an end to the alleged violations of Article 5 § 3 concerning the justification of the applicant's deprivation of liberty and of Article 5 § 4 concerning the availability of a judicial procedure satisfying the requirements for a full-fledged judicial review thereof (see, mutatis mutandis, Pekov v. Bulgaria, no. 50358/99, § 60, 30 March 2006).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  Equality of arms is not ensured if counsel is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his client's detention (see the Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29 and Nikolova, cited above, § 58).

• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  La Cour estime dès lors qu'en assignant le requérant à résidence sans avancer aucun motif particulier, les autorités ont failli à leur obligation de justifier son maintien en détention après le 25 mai 2010 par des raisons pertinentes et suffisantes (voir Danov c. Bulgarie, no 56796/00, § 86, 26 octobre 2006).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 37124/10

  TONI KOSTADINOV c. BULGARIE

  Elles invoquèrent également les arrêts Ilijkov c. Bulgarie, no 33977/96, 26 juillet 2001, et Danov c. Bulgarie, no 56796/00, 26 octobre 2006, rendus par Cour.

  En particulier, l'article 2, alinéa 1 de la loi exigeait la reconnaissance préalable de l'illégalité de la détention par les tribunaux chargés d'examiner les demandes de mise en liberté des intéressés et la disposition de l'article 2, alinéa 2 prévoyait l'octroi d'une compensation pour détention illégale lorsque l'accusé avait été acquitté ou les poursuites pénales à son encontre avaient été abandonnées (voir, entre autres, Danov c. Bulgarie, no 56796/00, § 50, 26 octobre 2006; Botchev c. Bulgarie, no 73481/01, §§ 37, 38 et 77, 13 novembre 2008; Svetoslav Hristov c. Bulgarie, no 36794/03, §§ 62 et 63, 13 janvier 2011).

• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 30044/10

  DIMO DIMOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  En particulier, l'article 2, point 1 de la loi susmentionnée (actuellement article 2, alinéa 1, point 1) exigeait la reconnaissance préalable de l'illégalité de la détention par les tribunaux chargés d'examiner les demandes de mise en liberté des intéressés, et la disposition de l'article 2, point 2 de la même loi (actuellement article 2, alinéa 1, point 3) prévoyait l'octroi d'une compensation pour détention illégale en cas d'acquittement de l'accusé ou d'abandon des poursuites pénales diligentées contre celui-ci (voir, entre autres, Danov c. Bulgarie, no 56796/00, § 50, 26 octobre 2006 ; Botchev, précité, §§ 37, 38 et 77 ; Svetoslav Hristov c. Bulgarie, no 36794/03, §§ 62 et 63, 13 janvier 2011 ; Toni Kostadinov, précité, §§ 66).

 
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 28143/10

  MAKSIM SAVOV c. BULGARIE

  En particulier, l'article 2, alinéa 1 de la loi susmentionnée exigeait la reconnaissance préalable de l'illégalité de la détention par les tribunaux chargés d'examiner les demandes de mise en liberté des intéressés, et la disposition de l'article 2, alinéa 2 de la même loi prévoyait l'octroi d'une compensation pour détention illégale en cas d'acquittement de l'accusé ou d'abandon des poursuites pénales diligentées contre celui-ci (voir, entre autres, Danov c. Bulgarie, no 56796/00, § 50, 26 octobre 2006, Botchev c. Bulgarie, no 73481/01, §§ 37, 38 et 77, 13 novembre 2008, Svetoslav Hristov c. Bulgarie, no 36794/03, §§ 62 et 63, 13 janvier 2011, et Toni Kostadinov, précité, §§ 66).
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45081/04

  STEPANYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, among other authorities, Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, § 56, 26 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03

  SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, among other authorities, Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, § 56, 26 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35944/03

  GASPARYAN v. ARMENIA (No. 1)

  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, among other authorities, Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, § 56, 26 October 2006).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  AMIRYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter where it has been introduced within six months from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, among other authorities, Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, § 56, 26 October 2006).
• EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 13295/02

  GALINS v. LATVIA

  The Court recalls that in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it may only examine complaints which have been submitted within six months of the date of the "final" domestic decision or of the end of a continuing situation of which the applicant complains (see Danov v. Bulgaria, no. 56796/00, §§ 56 and 57, 26 October 2006 and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX).