Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL AKIDI v. BULGARIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 35825/97

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35825/97

  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 - 35825/97

  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 Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35346/97, and Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35519/97

  MIHOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35825/97

  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 Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35346/97, and Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL AKIDI v. BULGARIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 35825/97

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97

  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 - 35825/97

  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 - 35825/97

  The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications 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. 35346/97, and Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97).

• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97

  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 - 35825/97

  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 - 35825/97

  The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications 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. 35346/97, and Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  However, where it concerns a continuing situation, it runs from the end of the situation concerned (see Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 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, 04.04.2006 - 7324/02

  KOBTSEV v. UKRAINE

  The Court recalls that, according to its established case-law, where no domestic remedy is available, the six month period runs from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention (Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 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, 31.07.2003 - 35436/97

  HRISTOV v. BULGARIA

  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, 11.12.2006 - 30628/02

  UKHAN v. UKRAINE

  Furthermore, if it is assumed that at the material time the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy at his disposal in this respect, the Court reiterates its constant case-law that, where no domestic remedy is available, the six months" period referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention runs from the date of the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention (see Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 35312/02

  RYSHKEVICH v. UKRAINE

  The Court recalls that, according to its established case-law, where no domestic remedy is available, the six month period runs from the act alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention (Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000).
• 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

  The Court, having regard to awards made in previous similar cases (see Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97, 31 July 2003, Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35436/97, 31 July 2003, Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97, 31 July 2003, Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, 8 April 2004 and, Hamanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44062/98, 8 April 2004) and deciding on an equitable basis, awards EUR 3, 500 under this head.
• EGMR, 14.03.2006 - 29971/04

  KATS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  As to the applicants" complaints about the alleged irregularities of the initial arrest, the Court recalls that, according to its established case-law, where no domestic remedy is available, the six month period runs from the act purportedly constituting a violation of the Convention (Al Akidi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 35825/97, 19 September 2000).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL AKIDI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 35825/97
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 35825/97

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 35825/97

  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).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen