Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHEREMETOV v. BULGARIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  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, 13.09.2011 - 22/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  22/08/2008.
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 85, 8 July 2004).

• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  However, to determine whether the time which has elapsed following this date is reasonable, it is necessary to take account of the stage which the proceedings had reached at that point (see, among other authorities, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 70, 23 September 2004).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 49438/99

  STAYKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  As regards compensatory remedies, the Court has not found it established that under Bulgarian law there exists an avenue whereby an applicant could obtain damages or other redress for excessively lengthy criminal proceedings (see Osmanov and Yuseinov, § 41; Sidjimov, § 42; and Nalbantova, § 35, all cited above; see also Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, § 89 in fine, 12 October 2006).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38106/02

  NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  In several cases against Bulgaria the Court found that at the relevant time no formal remedy existed under Bulgarian law whereby an accused could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against him (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-40, 23 September 2004; Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 41, 27 January 2005; and Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 34, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 44626/98

  KIURKCHIAN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  They do not therefore constitute expenses necessarily incurred in seeking redress for the violation of the Convention found in the present case (see Kiurkchian v. Bulgaria, no. 44626/98, § 81, 24 March 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 58775/00

  MLADENOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  However, this general rule might be subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Mladenov v. Bulgaria, no. 58775/00, § 31, 12 October 2006, citing further authorities).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  In the Government's view, this case could be distinguished from the cases of Mladenov v. Bulgaria (no. 58775/00, § 32, 12 October 2006) and Sheremetov v. Bulgaria (no. 16880/02, § 34, 22 May 2008), where the Court had not been satisfied that the authorities had acknowledged the breach of the reasonable-time requirement of Article 6 § 1, in three respects.

  Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, §§ 37-45, 22 May 2008.

• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 49169/09

  STELLA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Aux yeux de la Cour, une réduction de peine telle que celle prévue par le nouvel article 35 ter de la loi sur l'administration pénitentiaire constitue un redressement adéquat en cas de mauvaises conditions matérielles de détention dans la mesure où, d'une part, elle est explicitement octroyée pour réparer la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention et où, d'autre part, son impact sur le quantum de la peine de la personne intéressée est mesurable (voir, quant au caractère mesurable, Bochev c. Bulgarie, no 73481/01, § 83, 13 novembre 2008, et Sheremetov c. Bulgarie, no 16880/02, § 34, 22 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06

  CASES OF FINGER, DIMITROV AND HAMANOV AND 54 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

  16880/02.

• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA

  However, this rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable-time requirement of Article 6 § 1 and have afforded redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see, as recent authorities, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Mladenov v. Bulgaria, no. 58775/00, § 31, 12 October 2006; Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, § 33, 22 May 2008; and Menelaou v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 32071/04, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 47180/10

  [FRE]

  Aux yeux de la Cour, une réduction de peine telle que celle prévue par le nouvel article 35 ter de la loi sur l'administration pénitentiaire constitue un redressement adéquat en cas de mauvaises conditions matérielles de détention dans la mesure où, d'une part, elle est explicitement octroyée pour réparer la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention et où, d'autre part, son impact sur le quantum de la peine de la personne intéressée est mesurable (voir, quant au caractère mesurable, Bochev c. Bulgarie, no 73481/01, § 83, 13 novembre 2008, et Sheremetov c. Bulgarie, no 16880/02, § 34, 22 mai 2008).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 708/13

  VISAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  However, this general rule might be subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66-70, Series A no. 51, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, § 33, 22 May 2008 and Nachev v. Bulgaria, no. 27402/05, § 30, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  NACHEV v. BULGARIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the reduction of a sentence on the grounds of the excessive length of proceedings does not in principle deprive the individual concerned of his status as a victim unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, in a sufficiently clear way a violation of Article 6 § 1 and have afforded appropriate redress (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66-70, Series A no. 51, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Mladenov v. Bulgaria, no. 58775/00, § 31, 12 October 2006 and Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, § 33, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 24733/04

  PFEIFER v. BULGARIA

  68454/01 and 68456/01, 2 June 2005; Kovács v. Hungary (dec.), no. 22661/02, 24 January 2006; Bochev, cited above, § 82; and Terziiski and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 1509/05, 30 September 2008; and contrast with Mladenov v. Bulgaria, no. 58775/00, §§ 25 and 32, 12 October 2006, and Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, §§ 25 and 34, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 26939/06

  TUCALIUC v. ROMANIA

  However, this general rule might be subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, § 33, 22 May 2008; and Nachev v. Bulgaria, no. 27402/05, § 30, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 30949/04

  DELOV v. BULGARIA

  However, as in the cases of Mladenov v. Bulgaria, (no. 58775/00, §§ 31 and 32, 12 October 2006) and Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, (no. 16880/02, §§ 33-34, 22 May 2008), in the present case the domestic courts did not acknowledge in a sufficiently clear manner a breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings and did not afford adequate redress as it is unclear what part of the reduction of the applicant's sentence was due to the belated determination of the charges against him and what part to other mitigating factors.