Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13+6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  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, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  Thus, whilst "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 may in general be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", it may in some instances take the form of other measures which carry the implication of such an allegation and which likewise substantially affect the situation of the suspect (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35, Eckle, cited above, § 73, and T.K. and S.E. v. Finland, no. 38581/97, § 26, 31 May 2005).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 27156/02

  MORBY contre le LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  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, 22.10.2009 - 27207/04

  YANKOV AND MANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  Having regard to these facts and applying the principles set out above, the Court finds that in the present case the applicant's situation was "substantially affected" and he could be considered as subject to a "charge" from the moment when he handed his gun to the police or at the latest from the moment he signed the declaration for his income and possessions (see, with further reference, Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria, nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05, §§ 17-18 and §§ 23-24, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  ATANASOV AND OVCHAROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  The domestic law provisions concerning remedies in respect of length of criminal proceedings have been summarized in paragraphs 34-42 of the Court's judgment in the case of Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, 17 January 2008.
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 25382/04

  STEFANOV & YURUKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, among many others, Yankov and Manchev, cited above, §§ 17-26 and Stefanov and Yurukov v. Bulgaria, no. 25382/04, § 17, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 38581/97

  T.K. AND S.E. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  Thus, whilst "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 may in general be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", it may in some instances take the form of other measures which carry the implication of such an allegation and which likewise substantially affect the situation of the suspect (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35, Eckle, cited above, § 73, and T.K. and S.E. v. Finland, no. 38581/97, § 26, 31 May 2005).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 58775/00

  MLADENOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  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, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  SHEREMETOV v. BULGARIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  Nachev v. Bulgaria, no. 27402/05, §§ 36-42, 21 December 2010.
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 37104/97

  KITOV CONTRE LA BULGARIE ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  27402/05.
• 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, 21.04.2015 - 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).