Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 36036/04
• EGMR - 36036/04 (anhängig)

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKEDONSKI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of P4-2-2 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 36036/04
• EGMR - 36036/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  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, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  A remedy is effective if it prevents the alleged violation or its continuation or provides adequate redress for any breach that has already occurred (ibid., § 158; and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  OSMANOV AND YUSEINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  As regards the time prior to this date the Court notes that in similar cases against Bulgaria it has found that at the relevant time there was no formal remedy under Bulgarian law that could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-42, 23 September 2004; and Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 41, 27 January 2005).

• EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00

  SIDJIMOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  As regards the time prior to this date the Court notes that in similar cases against Bulgaria it has found that at the relevant time there was no formal remedy under Bulgarian law that could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-42, 23 September 2004; and Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 41, 27 January 2005).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  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 and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  Any measure restricting that right must be lawful, pursue one of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of the above-mentioned Convention provision and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 17.07.2003 - 32190/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  The Court reiterates that even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see, among others, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, §§ 30-36, ECHR 2006-XII; and Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, §§ 21-24, 21 October 2008).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38106/02

  NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  Furthermore, the Court notes that a similar objection in respect of complaints about length of proceedings has been rejected in earlier cases (see Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 35, 27 September 2007; Doinov v. Bulgaria, no. 68356/01, §§ 31-37, 27 September 2007; and Mirchev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 71605/01, §§ 16-18, 27 November 2008) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 71605/01

  MIRCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  Furthermore, the Court notes that a similar objection in respect of complaints about length of proceedings has been rejected in earlier cases (see Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 35, 27 September 2007; Doinov v. Bulgaria, no. 68356/01, §§ 31-37, 27 September 2007; and Mirchev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 71605/01, §§ 16-18, 27 November 2008) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 37509/06

  BESSENYEI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  The Court reiterates that even where a restriction on the individual's freedom of movement was initially warranted, maintaining it automatically over a lengthy period of time may become a disproportionate measure, violating the individual's rights (see, among others, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 121, 23 May 2006; Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, §§ 30-36, ECHR 2006-XII; and Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, §§ 21-24, 21 October 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen