Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten morgen, 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten morgen, 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 23.10.2012

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 12739/05, 22373/04, 5182/02, 27079/04, 21480/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,15487
EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 12739/05, 22373/04, 5182/02, 27079/04, 21480/03 (https://dejure.org/2019,15487)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.06.2019 - 12739/05, 22373/04, 5182/02, 27079/04, 21480/03 (https://dejure.org/2019,15487)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Juni 2019 - 12739/05, 22373/04, 5182/02, 27079/04, 21480/03 (https://dejure.org/2019,15487)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,15487) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GORANOVA-KARAENEVA CONTRE LA BULGARIE ET 4 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GORANOVA-KARAENEVA AGAINST BULGARIA AND 4 OTHER CASES

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

    DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

    Nevertheless, in cases arising from individual applications, the Court must as a rule focus its attention not on the law as such but on the manner in which it was applied to the applicant in the particular circumstances (see Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 48, 8 March 2011).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 64523/12

    LEDVINA c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

    Ces éléments suffisent à la Cour pour conclure que, dans le cadre de la procédure pénale, le requérant a bénéficié a posteriori d'un contrôle juridictionnel efficace, tel que voulu par l'article 8 de la Convention, pour contester la mesure de surveillance dont il a fait l'objet (voir, a contrario, Matheron c. France, no 57752/00, § 37-41, 29 mars 2005; Goranova-Karaeneva c. Bulgarie, no 12739/05, § 49 in fine, 8 mars 2011; Bălteanu c. Roumanie, no 142/04, §§ 32-37, 16 juillet 2013 ; Ulariu c. Roumanie, no 19267/05, §§ 50-51, 19 novembre 2013; et Blaj c. Roumanie, no 36259/04, § 143, 8 avril 2014).
  • EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 18536/18

    GERNELLE ET S.A. SOCIÉTÉ D'EXPLOITATION DE L'HEBDOMADAIRE LE POINT c. FRANCE

    À l'inverse, tel n'est pas le cas lorsque le recours ouvert devant les juridictions pénales ne porte que sur l'équité de l'admission d'une preuve, sans leur permettre de connaître en substance du grief fondé sur la Convention (Khan c. Royaume-Uni, no 35394/97, § 44, CEDH 2000-V, Goranova-Karaeneva c. Bulgarie, no 12739/05, § 59, 8 mars 2011, Akhlyustin c. Russie, no 21200/05, § 24, 7 novembre 2017, Zubkov et autres c. Russie, nos 29431/05 et 2 autres, § 88, 7 novembre 2017, et Hambardzumyan c. Arménie, no 43478/11, § 43, 5 décembre 2019).
  • EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 6046/08

    ATANASOV c. BULGARIE

    Il ajoute que, de même, dans ce type d'affaires, la Cour ne peut pas remettre en question l'interprétation et l'application du droit interne par les autorités de l'État, sauf en cas d'inobservation flagrante ou d'application arbitraire de la législation interne pertinente (Microintelect OOD c. Bulgarie, no 34129/03, § 39, 4 mars 2014, Weber et Saravia c. Allemagne (déc.), no 54934/00, § 90, CEDH 2006-XI, et Goranova-Karaeneva c. Bulgarie, no 12739/05, § 46, 8 mars 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,55569
EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,55569)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.10.2012 - 22373/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,55569)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Oktober 2012 - 22373/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,55569)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55569) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HADZHIEV v. BULGARIA

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence Respect for private life) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00

    ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    A description of the relevant provisions of the 1991 Constitution, the 1974 and 2005 Codes of Criminal Procedure, the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997, the Classified Information Act 2002, and the Access to Public Information Act 2000, as well as the case-law of the domestic courts and other relevant material can be found in paragraphs 7-50 of the Court's judgment in the case of Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria (no. 62540/00, 28 June 2007).

    In all of those cases the Court accepted that an individual may claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting them, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to him or her (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 30-38, Series A no. 28; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 64, Series A no. 82; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (dec.), no. 54934/00, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 58-59, 28 June 2007; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 57, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 34, 10 February 2009).

  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    In all of those cases the Court accepted that an individual may claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting them, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to him or her (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 30-38, Series A no. 28; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 64, Series A no. 82; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (dec.), no. 54934/00, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 58-59, 28 June 2007; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 57, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 34, 10 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

    Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    In all of those cases the Court accepted that an individual may claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting them, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to him or her (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 30-38, Series A no. 28; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 64, Series A no. 82; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (dec.), no. 54934/00, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 58-59, 28 June 2007; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 57, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 34, 10 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79
    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    In all of those cases the Court accepted that an individual may claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting them, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to him or her (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 30-38, Series A no. 28; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 64, Series A no. 82; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (dec.), no. 54934/00, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 58-59, 28 June 2007; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 57, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 34, 10 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    More recently, in Kennedy v. the United Kingdom (no. 26839/05, § 125, 18 May 2010), the Court, again faced with a similar objection by the respondent Government, observed that sight should not be lost of the reason for its departure, in cases concerning secret measures, from its general approach that individuals cannot challenge a law in abstracto: to ensure that the secrecy of such measures did not result in them being effectively unchallengeable and outside the supervision of the national judicial authorities and the Court.
  • EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

    LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    In all of those cases the Court accepted that an individual may claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting them, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to him or her (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 30-38, Series A no. 28; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 64, Series A no. 82; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (dec.), no. 54934/00, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 58-59, 28 June 2007; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 57, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 34, 10 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

    Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    That Committee has yet to make a pronouncement on those developments (contrast Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 67, ECHR 2009-...).
  • EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    Secondly, the Court has so far resisted claims for punitive or aggravated damages (see Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 97, 23 November 2010, with further references).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02
    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    In all of those cases the Court accepted that an individual may claim to be the victim of a violation occasioned by the mere existence of secret measures or of legislation permitting them, without having to allege that such measures were in fact applied to him or her (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 30-38, Series A no. 28; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 64, Series A no. 82; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (dec.), no. 54934/00, §§ 78-79, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, §§ 58-59, 28 June 2007; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 57, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 34, 10 February 2009).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 18/03

    VANZHULA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22373/04
    18/03/2013.
  • EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 71525/01

    DUMITRU POPESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)

  • EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 1867/04

    GLUKHIKH v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 7610/15

    VASILEV v. BULGARIA

    Details about its powers and manner of operation can be found in Hadzhiev v. Bulgaria (no. 22373/04, §§ 26-28, 23 October 2012) and Lenev v. Bulgaria (no. 41452/07, §§ 81-83, 4 December 2012).
  • EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 53626/14

    HARIZANOV c. BULGARIE

    La Cour a réitéré ce même constat dans une série d'affaires subséquentes contre la Bulgarie concernant des faits qui étaient survenus avant 2009 (Hadzhiev c. Bulgarie, no 22373/04, §§ 53 et 54, 23 octobre 2012, Savovi c. Bulgarie, no 7222/05, § 65, 27 novembre 2012, et Lenev c. Bulgarie, no 41452/07, § 138, 4 décembre 2012).
  • EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 12739/05

    GORANOVA-KARAENEVA AGAINST BULGARIA AND 4 OTHER CASES

    22373/04.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht