Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06

In all five judicial decisions submitted by the Government to the Court, the ground for awarding damages had been the fact of quashing by the courts of the initial administrative decisions as unlawful, and not the fact of lack of implementation of the judgments quashing those administrative decisions (see further on this point Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria, no. 34130/04, § 104, 26 November 2013).

The Court also notes that it has earlier held, in the context of complaints about failure to comply with administrative courts" judgments in a number of cases in respect of Bulgaria, that compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention required administrative bodies to act in accordance with the findings and indications in the courts" final judgments (see Basarba OOD v. Bulgaria, no. 77660/01, § 32, 7 January 2010; Popnikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 30388/02, § 29, 25 March 2010; Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria, no. 34130/04, § 79, 26 November 2013).

In view of the violation it found of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant had an arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13. It then recalls that domestic remedies in cases of failure to implement domestic judgments can in principle be either of preventive or of compensatory nature (see Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria, no. 34130/04, § 91, 26 November 2013; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 98, ECHR 2009; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no 40450/04, § 65, CEDH 2009-... (extraits)).).

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06

In view of the violation it found of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant had an arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13. It then recalls that domestic remedies in cases of failure to implement domestic judgments can in principle be either of preventive or of compensatory nature (see Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria, no. 34130/04, § 91, 26 November 2013; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 98, ECHR 2009; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no 40450/04, § 65, CEDH 2009-... (extraits)).).

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06

In view of the violation it found of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant had an arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13. It then recalls that domestic remedies in cases of failure to implement domestic judgments can in principle be either of preventive or of compensatory nature (see Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria, no. 34130/04, § 91, 26 November 2013; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 98, ECHR 2009; Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no 40450/04, § 65, CEDH 2009-... (extraits)).).

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06

Furthermore, the requirement for the applicant to exhaust domestic remedies is normally determined with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).

Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 18238/06

The Court recalls that where the Government claims non-exhaustion of domestic remedies it bears the burden of proving that the applicant has not used a remedy that was both effective and available (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010).