Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 23.02.2010

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06, 2708/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,57139
EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06, 2708/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,57139)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.05.2011 - 48059/06, 2708/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,57139)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Mai 2011 - 48059/06, 2708/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,57139)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,57139) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
    Violations of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Respondent State to take measures of a general character Non-pecuniary damage - award (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 ... (21)Zitiert selbst (138)

  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 27207/04

    YANKOV AND MANCHEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    27207/04 and 15614/05, §§ 18 and 24, 22 October 2009; Stefanov and Yurukov v. Bulgaria, no. 25382/04, §§ 4 and 14, 1 April 2010; and Rangelov and Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 23240/04, §§ 5 and 14, 1 April 2010).

    27207/04 and 15614/05, § 32, 22 October 2009; Rumen Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 27240/04, § 17, 14 October 2010; Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, no. 891/05, § 51, 20 January 2011; and Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, § 58, 20 January 2011).

    27207/04 and 15614/05, §§ 17-26, 22 October 2009.

  • EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 45964/99

    KAROV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    The bulk of the delay in Mr Dimitrov's case took place before the introduction of that remedy in June 2003 (see paragraphs 8-10 above), and could not have been remedied through it (see Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, § 158, 22 December 2004; Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 40, 27 January 2005; Karov v. Bulgaria, no. 45964/99, § 74 in fine, 16 November 2006; Vasilev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 61257/00, §§ 29 and 37-40, 8 November 2007; Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, §§ 57-58, 17 January 2008; Yankov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 70728/01, § 57, 7 February 2008; Gavazov v. Bulgaria, no. 54659/00, §§ 164-65, 6 March 2008; Ivan Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 32461/02, §§ 36-37 and 45-48, 20 March 2008; Balabanov v. Bulgaria, no. 70843/01, § 30, 3 July 2008; Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria, nos.

    The Court has also many times noted the lack of compensatory remedies (see Osmanov and Yuseinov, § 41; Mitev, § 160; Sidjimov, § 42; and Popov, § 91, all cited above; Karov v. Bulgaria, no. 45964/99, § 74 in limine, 16 November 2006; Nalbantova, § 35; Karamitrov and Others, §§ 59 and 60; and Atanasov and Ovcharov, §§ 59 and 60; Yankov (no. 2), §§ 58 and 59; Krasimir Yordanov, § 35; Gavazov, § 166; Petrov, § 63; Kirov, § 80; Sheremetov, § 53; Balabanov, § 31; Myashev, § 22; Valentin Ivanov, § 36; and Yankov and Manchev, § 33, all cited above).

    Karov v. Bulgaria, no. 45964/99, §§ 58-66, 16 November 2006.

  • EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

    OSMANOV AND YUSEINOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    In a number of judgments, that Court has noted that before the introduction of Article 239a of the [1974] Code of Criminal Procedure our State did not make available a remedy complying with the requirements of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and capable of ensuring that the pre-trial phase of criminal proceedings does not exceed a reasonable time [(see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 23 September 2004; Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, 22 December 2004; and Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, 27 January 2005)].

    The Court has found in a number of judgments that, apart from the above-mentioned remedy, there are no acceleratory remedies in respect of the length of criminal proceedings in Bulgaria (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, § 38, 23 September 2004; Mitev, cited above, §§ 158-59; Sidjimov, cited above, §§ 40-41; Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 48137/99, § 91, 1 December 2005; Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 34, 27 September 2007; Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, § 58, 10 January 2008; Atanasov and Ovcharov, cited above, §§ 56 and 57; Krasimir Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50899/99, § 35, 15 February 2007; Gavazov, cited above, §§ 164-65; Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 62, 22 May 2008; Kirov v. Bulgaria, no. 5182/02, § 81, 22 May 2008; Sheremetov, cited above, § 52; Balabanov, cited above, §§ 30 and 32; Myashev, cited above, § 22; Valentin Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 76942/01, § 36, 26 March 2009; and Yankov and Manchev, cited above, § 32).

    54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 23-30, 23 September 2004.

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    Besides, it should be taken into account that an automatic reduction of sentence for convicted criminals on account of their previous stay in substandard detention facilities may adversely affect the public interest of criminal punishment (see Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, nos. 48059/06 and 2708/09, § 129, 10 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 72287/10

    RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    48059/06 and 2708/09, § 133, 10 May 2011; and Finger, cited above, § 135).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.09.2020 - C-83/19

    Nach Auffassung von Generalanwalt Bobek verstoßen die vorläufige Ernennung des …

    {FN:163} Vgl. EGMR, 10. Mai 2011, Dimitrov und Hamanov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0510JUD004805906, § 72).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06, 2708/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,63578
EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06, 2708/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,63578)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.02.2010 - 48059/06, 2708/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,63578)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Februar 2010 - 48059/06, 2708/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,63578)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63578) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

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 ... (0)Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06

    PREVITI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
    For the same reasons, the Court does not find that Mr Hamanov's conviction and punishment were contrary to the requirements of Article 7 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Previti v. Italy (no. 2) (dec.), no. 45291/06, §§ 270-87, 8 December 2009).
  • EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

    RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
    The Court is not a court of appeal from the national courts (see Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)) and it is not its task to verify whether their ruling on that point, which does not appear arbitrary, was correct in terms of Bulgarian law (see Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 43, 14 February 2008, with further references).
  • EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

    CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
    The Court is not a court of appeal from the national courts (see Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)) and it is not its task to verify whether their ruling on that point, which does not appear arbitrary, was correct in terms of Bulgarian law (see Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 43, 14 February 2008, with further references).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 44062/98

    HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
    The detailed course of the proceedings up to April 2003 has been set out in paragraphs 11-32 of the Court's judgment in the case of Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, 8 April 2004).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 25575/04

    DRASSICH c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
    It does not consider that it rendered the proceedings against the applicant unfair as a whole, because he had the opportunity of advancing his defence in respect of the reformulated charge before the appellate and the cassation courts, both of which were able fully to review his case and replace his conviction with an acquittal (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, §§ 48-52, ECHR 2001-II; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001; Feldman v. France (dec.), no. 53426/99, 6 June 2002; Sipavicius v. Lithuania, no. 49093/99, §§ 30-33, 21 February 2002; D.C. v. Italy, cited above; and Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004; and, as examples to the contrary, Drassich v. Italy, no. 25575/04, § 36, 11 December 2007, and Penev v. Bulgaria, no. 20494/04, §§ 37-39, 7 January 2010).
  • EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 48193/99

    BALETTE contre la BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
    It does not consider that it rendered the proceedings against the applicant unfair as a whole, because he had the opportunity of advancing his defence in respect of the reformulated charge before the appellate and the cassation courts, both of which were able fully to review his case and replace his conviction with an acquittal (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, §§ 48-52, ECHR 2001-II; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001; Feldman v. France (dec.), no. 53426/99, 6 June 2002; Sipavicius v. Lithuania, no. 49093/99, §§ 30-33, 21 February 2002; D.C. v. Italy, cited above; and Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004; and, as examples to the contrary, Drassich v. Italy, no. 25575/04, § 36, 11 December 2007, and Penev v. Bulgaria, no. 20494/04, §§ 37-39, 7 January 2010).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 55990/00

    D.C. contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
    It is not the Court's task to verify whether this was done in breach of the domestic rules of criminal procedure, but merely to assess its effect on the fairness of the proceedings as a whole (see D.C. v. Italy (dec.), no. 55990/00, 28 February 2002).
  • EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 43659/98

    LAKATOS v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
    It does not consider that it rendered the proceedings against the applicant unfair as a whole, because he had the opportunity of advancing his defence in respect of the reformulated charge before the appellate and the cassation courts, both of which were able fully to review his case and replace his conviction with an acquittal (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, §§ 48-52, ECHR 2001-II; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001; Feldman v. France (dec.), no. 53426/99, 6 June 2002; Sipavicius v. Lithuania, no. 49093/99, §§ 30-33, 21 February 2002; D.C. v. Italy, cited above; and Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004; and, as examples to the contrary, Drassich v. Italy, no. 25575/04, § 36, 11 December 2007, and Penev v. Bulgaria, no. 20494/04, §§ 37-39, 7 January 2010).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht