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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (35)

  • 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, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

    ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    Since its first judgment concerning the length of criminal proceedings in Bulgaria (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 111-18, 26 July 2001), the Court has found breaches of the reasonable-time requirement in criminal proceedings in more than eighty cases (see Annex 1).

    Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 111-18, 26 July 2001.

  • EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

    Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    That Court uses three criteria to assess the relevant period: the factual and legal complexity of the case, the conduct of any authorities involved and the conduct of the person concerned [(see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51; Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, 13 July 1983, Series A no. 66; Kreps v. Poland, no. 34097/96, 26 July 2001; and S.H.K. v. Bulgaria, no. 37355/97, 23 October 2003)].

    A State may thus be found liable not only for delay in the handling of a particular case, but also for a failure to increase resources in response to a backlog of cases, or for structural deficiencies in its judicial system that cause delays (see Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, 13 July 1983, §§ 29-32, Series A no. 66; Guincho, cited above, §§ 39-41; and Pammel v. Germany, 1 July 1997, §§ 69-72, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV).

     
  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    That Court uses three criteria to assess the relevant period: the factual and legal complexity of the case, the conduct of any authorities involved and the conduct of the person concerned [(see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51; Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, 13 July 1983, Series A no. 66; Kreps v. Poland, no. 34097/96, 26 July 2001; and S.H.K. v. Bulgaria, no. 37355/97, 23 October 2003)].

    According to the Court's case-law, mitigation of sentence granted on account of the excessive length of proceedings may deprive the individual concerned of his or her status as a victim when the national authorities acknowledge in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable-time requirement of Article 6 § 1 and afford redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51, and, more recently, Bochev v. Bulgaria, no. 73481/01, § 81, 13 November 2008, with further references).

  • EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 33946/03

    ROBERT LESJAK v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    Fourthly, such claims can be brought only after the criminal proceedings have ended and not while they are still pending (see Robert Lesjak v. Slovenia, no. 33946/03, §§ 52-53, 21 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

    Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    A comprehensive restatement of the relevant principles, as established in Kudla and its progeny, may be found in the Court's judgment in the case of Sürmeli v. Germany ([GC], no. 75529/01, §§ 97-101, ECHR 2006-VII, with further references):.
  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    The Contracting States enjoy considerable freedom in the choice of the means calculated to ensure that their judicial systems are in compliance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 100, Series A no. 27, and, more recently, Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, §§ 83 and 84, 16 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 10597/03

    Rechtssache O. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an avenue whereby persons charged with criminal offences can vindicate, as such, their right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Ommer v. Germany (no. 1), no. 10597/03, §§ 41-43 and 75, 13 November 2008, and Ommer v. Germany (no. 2), no. 26073/03, §§ 37-40 and 62, 13 November 2008, as well as, mutatis mutandis, Peev v. Bulgaria, no. 64209/01, §§ 72-73, 26 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04

    BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    A summary of the principles applicable to pilot judgments may be found in the Court's judgments in the cases of Broniowski (cited above, §§ 188-94), Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, §§ 125-28, ECHR 2009-...), Olaru and Others v. Moldova (nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, §§ 49-49, 28 July 2009), Rumpf v. Germany (no. 46344/06, §§ 59-61, 2 September 2010) and Vassilios Athanasiou and Others v. Greece (no. 50973/08, §§ 39-42, 21 December 2010), as well as in the newly adopted Rule 61 of the Rules of Court (which was inserted by the Court on 21 February 2011 and came into force on 1 April 2011).
  • EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

    McFARLANE v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
    Indeed, less than full application of the guarantees of Article 13 would undermine the operation of the subsidiary character of the Court in the Convention system and, more generally, weaken the effective functioning, on both the national and international level, of the scheme of human rights protection set up by the Convention (see McFarlane v. Ireland ([GC], no. 31333/06, § 112, ECHR 2010-..., with further references).
  • EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

    Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 64209/01

    PEEV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 26073/03

    Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung (überlange Verfahrensdauer; Kriterien der …

  • EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 22644/03

    SIMALDONE c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

    CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78

    CORIGLIANO v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

    BRUSCO v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 58698/00

    PAULINO TOMAS contre le PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

    NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

    MICHALAK v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

    GUINCHO c. PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 26867/02

    GRZINCIC c. SLOVENIE

  • EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 476/07

    OLARU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 463/03

    KORENJAK v. SLOVENIA

  • EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

    GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 12895/05

    S. gegen Deutschland

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

    Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  • EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 65745/01

    Beschleunigungsgrundsatz im Haftverfahren (doppelte Strafmilderung bei Verletzung …

  • EGMR, 19.01.2006 - 71741/01

    CORDIER v. GERMANY

  • EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 31890/06

    KALETSCH v. GERMANY

  • EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 61222/00

    UOTI v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 11704/03

    LEHTONEN v. FINLAND

  • EGMR - 36742/08 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 25597/07

    TAAVITSAINEN v. FINLAND

     
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 04.04.2017 - C-612/15

    Kolev u.a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Strafverfahren - Richtlinie …

    12 Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 10. Mai 2011, Dimitrov und Hamanov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0510JUD004805906), sowie Rn. 34.1 und 37 des Vorabentscheidungsersuchens.
  • EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 35729/12

    BARTA AND DRAJKÓ v. HUNGARY

    48059/06 and 2708/09, §§ 125-129, 10 May 2011, and Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 24240/07, §§ 69-72, 20 March 2012).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39143/06

    ZHELEV c. BULGARIE

    La Cour a eu l'occasion d'affirmer à plusieurs reprises que, hormis le recours prévu par l'article 239a de l'ancien CPP et les articles 368 et 369 du nouveau CPP, le droit bulgare ne prévoyait aucune voie de recours susceptible d'accélérer le cours d'une procédure pénale pendante (voir l'arrêt Dimitrov et Hamanov c. Bulgarie, nos 48059/06 et 2708/09, §§ 92-95, 10 mai 2011 avec les références).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

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)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht