Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Partly admissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 14+8 Violation of Art. 13 (excessive length of the criminal proceedings) No violation of Art. 13 (monitoring of the applicant's correspondence) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.10.2006 - 15197/02
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 15197/02

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority in respect of an arguable complaint of a breach of the requirement of Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 146-57, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  However, the Court does not find it necessary to determine this point, as, for the reasons which follow, it considers that this measure was incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention in other respects (see, mutatis mutandis, Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p. 23, § 51; Crémieux v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-B, p. 61, § 34; and Miailhe v. France (no. 1), judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-C, p. 88, § 32).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  The Court must thus establish whether the matter of which the applicant complains falls within the purview of Article 8. On this point, it first observes that while any detention which is lawful under Article 5 of the Convention entails by its nature a limitation on private and family life, it is an essential part of an inmate's right to respect for family life that the prison authorities assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-X; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts); and Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 187, 29 April 2003).

 
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  It safeguards persons who are in analogous or relevantly similar positions against discriminatory differences in treatment that have as their basis or reason a personal characteristic ("status") by which persons or a group of persons are distinguishable from each other (see, as a recent authority, Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 160, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  On this point, the Court observes that some measure of control over this correspondence is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention, regard being had to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 38, § 98; and Campbell, cited above, p. 18, § 45).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  After analysing in detail the relevant constitutional and Convention provisions and making, inter alia, reference to the cases of Campbell v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233), Calogero Diana v. Italy (judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) and Petra v. Romania (judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII), the court held that a blanket authorisation to inspect the correspondence of all inmates without regard to their particular circumstances and the threat which they allegedly posed to society through such correspondence was contrary to Articles 30 § 5 and 34 of the 1991 Constitution.
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  While the Contracting States may be allowed a certain margin of appreciation to treat differently married and unmarried couples in the fields of, for instance, taxation, social security or social policy (see, for example, Shackell and Lindsay, both cited above; McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, pp. 58-59, § 98; and Sahin, cited above, § 94), it is not readily apparent why married and unmarried partners who have an established family life are to be given disparate treatment as regards the possibility to maintain contact by telephone while one of them is in custody.
• EGMR, 18.05.2000 - 41488/98

  VELIKOVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  The Court further notes that a couple who have lived together for many years constitute a "family" for the purposes of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention and are entitled to its protection notwithstanding the fact that their relationship exists outside marriage (see Velikova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41488/98, ECHR 1999-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 11471/85

  CRÉMIEUX v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  However, the Court does not find it necessary to determine this point, as, for the reasons which follow, it considers that this measure was incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention in other respects (see, mutatis mutandis, Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p. 23, § 51; Crémieux v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-B, p. 61, § 34; and Miailhe v. France (no. 1), judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-C, p. 88, § 32).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  The Court must thus establish whether the matter of which the applicant complains falls within the purview of Article 8. On this point, it first observes that while any detention which is lawful under Article 5 of the Convention entails by its nature a limitation on private and family life, it is an essential part of an inmate's right to respect for family life that the prison authorities assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-X; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts); and Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 187, 29 April 2003).

• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 3976/05

  SERIFE YIGIT c. TURQUIE

  Cette marge est d'autant plus ample qu'il s'agit pour l'Etat de prendre des mesures d'ordre général en matière fiscale, économique ou sociale, lesquelles sont intimement liées aux ressources financières de l'Etat (Burden c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 13378/05, § 60, CEDH 2008-..., et Petrov c. Bulgarie, no 15197/02, § 55, 22 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07

  CLIFT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The fact that the applicant's situation is not fully analogous to that of shorter-term or life prisoners and that there are differences between the various groups does not preclude the application of Article 14 (see, mutatis mutandis, Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 53, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 57123/08

  DIMCHO DIMOV c. BULGARIE

  Dans son arrêt Petrov c. Bulgarie (no 15197/02, §§ 43 et 44, 22 mai 2008), elle a pu constater que l'autorisation générale donnée par la législation bulgare à l'administration pénitentiaire de procéder au contrôle de la correspondance d'un prisonnier, y compris des lettres de son représentant, n'était pas accompagnée des garanties nécessaires afin de prémunir l'individu contre l'arbitraire et, par conséquent, s'analysait en une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 27051/09

  MOLDOVAN v. ROMANIA

  The applicant does not complain of an interference with his correspondence with the Court (compare and contrast, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 79, ECHR 2001-III; and Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, § 31, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII) or with his lawyer (compare and contrast, Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 30, Series A no. 233; Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, § 11, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, §§ 35 and 39, 22 May 2008).