Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HRISTOV 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

• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35436/97
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35436/97
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  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, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and Ječius v. Lithuania, [no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX] §§ 93 and 94).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, and the cases of Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97, and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).

• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and Ječius v. Lithuania, [no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX] §§ 93 and 94).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and Ječius v. Lithuania, [no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX] §§ 93 and 94).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35519/97

  MIHOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, and the cases of Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97, and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97

  AL AKIDI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, and the cases of Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97, and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.10.2016 - C-439/16

  Milev - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …

  {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.
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

  In these circumstances the Court cannot conclude that the judicial examination of the applicant's detention carried out by the Regional Court on 13 November 2002 met the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the required scope of review (see Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35436/97, § 117, 31 July 2003).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  That day is, therefore, the point when the six-month period started to run, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000 and Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000).

• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00

  RADOSLAV POPOV v. BULGARIA

  Accordingly, the time-limit for submitting the related complaint to the Court expired six months after 4 May 1999 (see G.K. v. Poland (dec.), no. 38816/97, 8 December 1998; Baginski v. Poland (dec.), no. 37444/97, 21 January 2003; Oratowski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 40698/98, 6 February 2003; Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000; and Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 36275/02

  STOYAN DIMITROV c. BULGARIE

  La Cour a par la suite réaffirmé ce constat dans une série d'arrêts rendus à l'encontre de la Bulgarie (voir, par exemple, Hristov c. Bulgarie, no 35436/97, § 117, 31 juillet 2003; I.I. c. Bulgarie, no 44082/98, §§ 104 et 105, 9 juin 2005).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA

  It reaffirmed this ruling in several later cases (see, for example, Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35436/97, § 117, 31 July 2003; and I.I., cited above, §§ 104 and 105).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00

  MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA

  The six-month period therefore started to run not later than on that date, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, among others, Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35519/97

  MIHOV v. BULGARIA

  All of them later submitted applications raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, and the cases of Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35436/97 and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 12098/05

  FILIPOV v. BULGARIA

  In view of its extensive and clear case law on the issues raised in the present case, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001; Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35436/97, 31 July 2003; Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, 30 January 2003; Bochev v. Bulgaria no. 73481/01, 13 November 2008; and Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, 22 May 2008), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35519/97

  MIHOV v. BULGARIA

  All of them later submitted applications to the European Commission of Human Rights raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, unreported, and the pending cases of Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35436/97 and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 41171/98

  ZAPRIANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 51197/99

  SAEZ v. the NETHERLANDS

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HRISTOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35436/97
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35436/97
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35436/97

  This may be so even in the absence of any formal finding; it suffices that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court regards the accused as guilty (the Minelli v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, p…, § 37).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35436/97

  Insofar as the applicant's complaint also concerns his detention pending appeal, the Court observes that a detention "after conviction by a competent court" falls under Article 5 § 1(a) of the Convention, even if it is considered as detention on remand under domestic law (the B. v. Austria judgement of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 35-40).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35436/97

  The Court recalls that according to the established case-law of the Convention organs where no domestic remedy is available the six-month period runs from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention; however, where it concerns a continuing situation, it runs from the end of the situation concerned ([see] Yankov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39084/97, 11.5.2000, unreported; Belchev v. Bulgaria (dec.) no. 39270/98, 11.5.2000, unreported; appl.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00

  DANOV v. BULGARIA

  Thus, the time-limit for submitting his complaints to the Court expired six months after the aforementioned date (see Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000, and Hristov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35436/97, 19 September 2000).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HRISTOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35436/97
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35436/97
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35436/97

  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, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35436/97

  The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications to the European Commission of Human Rights raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, unreported, and the pending cases of Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97, and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35519/97

  MIHOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35436/97

  The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications to the European Commission of Human Rights raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, unreported, and the pending cases of Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97, and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen