Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 20.10.1997 - 33977/96
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

Wird zitiert von ... (146)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova, cited above, § 63; and Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, unreported).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova, cited above, § 63; and Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, unreported).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova, cited above, § 63; and Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, unreported).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  cit.; Musial v. Poland, 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II; Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/98, § 67, ECHR 2000-X), and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the global sum of BGN 6, 000 under the head of non-pecuniary damage in respect of the violations of the Convention found in the present case.
• EGMR, 29.06.2000 - 35892/97

  SABEUR BEN ALI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  cit.; Musial v. Poland, 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II; Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/98, § 67, ECHR 2000-X), and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the global sum of BGN 6, 000 under the head of non-pecuniary damage in respect of the violations of the Convention found in the present case.
• EGMR, 25.04.2000 - 31315/96

  PUNZELT v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  cit., § 109; Punzelt v. the Czech Republic, no. 31315/96, 25 April 2000, unreported; Grauslys v. Lithuania, loc.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  Only special circumstances may in a given case be such as to warrant a different conclusion (see the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  There exist, as illustrated by the Court's judgments in a number of cases under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, a variety of possible procedural solutions whereby the requirement of objective impartiality would not be infringed in a similar situation (see the following judgments: Sainte-Marie v. France of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-A; Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B; Fey v. Austria of 24 February 1993 Series A no. 255-A; Nortier v. the Netherlands of 24 August 1993 Series A no. 267; and Padovani v. Italy of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  However, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention on remand (see, as a recent authority, Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 94, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 13924/88

  NORTIER c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

  SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97

  GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12981/87

  SAINTE-MARIE c. FRANCE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the burden of proof in these matters should not be reversed by making it incumbent on the detained person to demonstrate the existence of reasons warranting his release (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 85, 26 July 2001).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  According to the Court's constant case-law, although the severity of the sentence faced by the applicant is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding, the need to continue the deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed from a purely abstract point of view, taking into consideration only the gravity of the offence (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 101, 1 March 2007; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001; and Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).

  Relying on the Court's findings in Ilijkov v. Bulgaria (no. 33977/96, § 116, 26 July 2001), the applicant noted that the delay caused by the substitution of a lay judge on 31 July 2001 could have been avoided, had the court appointed a substitute lay judge on 20 July 2001 as his defence had proposed.

• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05

  [ENG]

  Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005; and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 84-85, 26 July 2001).

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 101, 1 March 2007; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001; and Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207,).

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005, and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 84-85, 26 July 2001).

  It acknowledges that in view of the seriousness of the accusations against the applicant, the authorities could justifiably have considered that such an initial risk was established (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  This practice has already been criticised by the Court in a number of judgments (see Zherebin, cited above, § 60; Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, § 49, 19 December 2013; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 84-85, 26 July 2001; and Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005).
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  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, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  The Commission also found that the applicant's allegations of being subjected to ill-treatment while being force-fed on hunger strike were unsubstantiated, as the applicant had failed to prove that the manner of his force-feeding amounted to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see Petar Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 1, Commission decision of 20 October 1997).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.10.2016 - C-439/16

  Milev - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …

  Vgl. beispielsweise EGMR, 26. Juli 2011, 11ijkov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2001:0726JUD003397796, § 97, und 27. März 2012, Gerdjikov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2012:0327JUD002706104, § 28.

  {FN:28} - Vgl. beispielsweise die vom vorlegenden Gericht angeführten Urteile EGMR, 25. März 1999, Nikolova/Bulgarien [GK], CE:ECHR:1999:0325JUD003119596, §§ 61 bis 66, 26. Juli 2001, Ilijkov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2001:0726JUD003397796, §§ 95 bis 97, 21. Juli 2003, Hristov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2003:0731JUD003543697, §§ 116 bis 120, 9. Juni 2005, I. I./Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2005:0609JUD004408298, §§ 103 bis 106, 21. Dezember 2006, Vassilev/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2006:1221JUD006254400, §§ 33 bis 39, 13. November 2008, Bochev/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2008:1113JUD007348101, §§ 64 bis 66 und 71, 21. April 2009, Rangelov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2009:0423JUD001438703, §§ 44 bis 47, 22. Oktober 2009, Dimitrov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2009:1022JUD003627502, §§ 86 bis 90, 26. November 2009, Koriyski/Bulgarien, ECHR:2009:1126JUD001925703, §§ 44 bis 46, sowie 27. März 2012, Gerdjikov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2012:0327JUD002706104.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.11.2019 - C-653/19

  Spetsializirana prokuratura - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  {FN:68} Vgl. EGMR, 26. Juli 2001, 11ijkov gegen Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2001:0726JUD003397796, §§ 86 und 87), und EGMR, 19. März 2014, Pastukhov und Yelagin gegen Russland (CE:ECHR:2013:1219JUD005529907, § 40).

  {FN:69} Vgl., zu einer als vereinbar mit Art. 5 Abs. 3 der EMRK angesehenen Vermutung, EGMR, 24. August 1998, Contrada gegen Italien (CE:ECHR:1998:0824JUD002714395, § 58); zum umgekehrten Fall vgl. EGMR, 26. Juli 2001, 11ijkov gegen Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2001:0726JUD003397796 §§ 84 ff.).

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005, and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 84-85, 26 July 2001).

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier, cited above, § 51; see also Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001; and Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 135, 23 October 2012).

• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 56762/00

  DIMOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  MELNIKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 58444/15

  GRUBNYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13

  TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 4633/15

  BIIMURZAEVA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 77845/01

  DERECI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.02.2005 - 56271/00

  SARDINAS ALBO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06

  RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 16966/06

  MURADVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 25324/02

  TACIROGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 30044/10

  DIMOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  MOSKOVETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  POPOV AND VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 15667/03

  WOLF v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 50358/99

  PEKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  POROWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 35297/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98

  IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 42296/09

  KOVROV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.08.2018 - C-310/18

  Milev - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  DERMANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 10638/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29985/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 14824/02

  SYCHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 67542/01

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06

  GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 39324/98

  DEMIREL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 15911/08

  GEISTERFER v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 921/03

  BORDIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  FURSENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 49048/99

  HUSEYIN ESEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  PATSURIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  OSMANOV AND YUSEINOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 32327/06

  POPKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 13425/02

  MICHTA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 6270/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02

  TAMAMBOGA AND GÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 50326/99

  KOLEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 35584/02

  GULIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  OVSJANNIKOV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 49905/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 3194/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 7739/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 36551/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 3223/07

  ALEKSEY MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18123/04

  MATSKUS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  SELÇUK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

  SEVGIN AND INCE v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 40159/98

  TEMEL ET TASKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35519/97

  MIHOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 29448/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 22921/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 56305/08

  GETOS-MAGDIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 13659/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 29287/02

  AYHAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 51521/99

  KUCHARSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 35833/03

  DZITKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 1326/04

  SZYDLOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 15154/03

  MALIKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 32849/04

  MUCHA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 47043/99

  MEHMET YAVUZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

  ÖZDEN BILGIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 57963/00

  DUYUM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 56552/00

  TELECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99

  GÖKÇE AND DEMIREL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 6356/04

  PASINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 58398/00

  HASAN CEYLAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 5701/02

  KARAGÖZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 21179/02

  SABRI TAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97

  AL AKIDI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  HRISTOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  MIGON v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35825/97

  AL AKIDI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35436/97

  HRISTOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2026 - 49068/20

  BAYRAMALIYEV v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 14807/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 25928/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 12098/05

  FILIPOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 19257/03

  KORIYSKI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 13541/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 28002/06

  SZULC c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 9382/05

  ZELAZKO v. POLAND
• EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 14224/05

  GRACKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 41230/04

  GORECKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 19177/03

  SCHMALZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 17765/02

  DURSUN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 13017/02

  PAKKAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 7347/02

  KUSYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 20510/02

  VAN THUIL v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35519/97

  MIHOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR - 21974/09 (anhängig)

  SHARAFUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 37245/13

  LABUDEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 52683/15

  ZAGALSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 2450/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 61908/00

  MEHMET GÜNES v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 52389/99

  EMIL HRISTOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2004 - 70068/01

  FALLETTA contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 60851/00

  PANTANO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 30506/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 13732/03

  OSINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 16779/02

  KALAY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 20723/02

  OSVATH v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

  ALTIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 398/11

  SZEPTYCKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 49045/99

  GUTZANOV c. BULGARIE