Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38106/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38106/02

  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).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court has found in a number of judgments that, apart from the above-mentioned remedy, there are no acceleratory remedies in respect of the length of criminal proceedings in Bulgaria (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, § 38, 23 September 2004; Mitev, cited above, §§ 158-59; Sidjimov, cited above, §§ 40-41; Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 48137/99, § 91, 1 December 2005; Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 34, 27 September 2007; Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, § 58, 10 January 2008; Atanasov and Ovcharov, cited above, §§ 56 and 57; Krasimir Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50899/99, § 35, 15 February 2007; Gavazov, cited above, §§ 164-65; Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 62, 22 May 2008; Kirov v. Bulgaria, no. 5182/02, § 81, 22 May 2008; Sheremetov, cited above, § 52; Balabanov, cited above, §§ 30 and 32; Myashev, cited above, § 22; Valentin Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 76942/01, § 36, 26 March 2009; and Yankov and Manchev, cited above, § 32).

  Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, §§ 30 and 31, 27 September 2007.

• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  PETROV v. BULGARIA

  In several cases against Bulgaria the Court found that at the relevant time no formal remedy existed under Bulgarian law whereby an accused could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against him (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-40, 23 September 2004; Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 41, 27 January 2005; and Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 34, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 22.02.2017 - 20484/05

  ARABADZHIEV ET ALEXIEV ET 33 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA BULGARIE

  38106/02.

• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 247/07

  CHRISTENSEN v. DENMARK

  In the light thereof the Court does not find it proven by the Government that, in the present case before the Supreme Court, the applicant had an effective, sufficient and accessible remedy in respect of her complaint that the length of the proceedings had been excessive (see, inter alia, Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, § 41, 23 September 2004 and Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 27207/04

  YANKOV AND MANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  The Court has previously found that until 2003 Bulgarian law did not provide remedies allowing those accused in criminal proceedings to expedite the determination of the charges against them (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-40, 23 September 2004; Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 41, 27 January 2005; Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 34, 27 September 2007; and Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, § 56, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  ATANASOV AND OVCHAROV v. BULGARIA

  In view of the above, the Court does not find it proven by the Government that in the circumstances of the present case an action under the SMRDA would have provided for an enforceable right to compensation which could be considered an effective, sufficient and accessible remedy in respect of the applicants' complaint concerning the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings (see, likewise, Osmanov and Yuseinov, cited above, § 41; Sidjimov, cited above, § 42; and Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 41008/04

  GERDZHIKOV v. BULGARIA

  It recalls that similar objections has been rejected in earlier cases against Bulgaria (see Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 35, 27 September 2007, and Balabanov v. Bulgaria, no. 70843/01, § 31, 3 July 2008) because the SMRDA does not provide for damages in respect of length of proceedings (see paragraph 14 above).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 70843/01

  BALABANOV v. BULGARIA

  Accordingly, the Court holds that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies should be joined to the merits (see Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 27, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  SHEREMETOV v. BULGARIA

  In several cases against Bulgaria the Court found that at the relevant time no formal remedy existed under Bulgarian law whereby an accused could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against him (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-40, 23 September 2004; Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 41, 27 January 2005; and Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 34, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  KARAMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find it proven by the Government that in the circumstances of the present case an action under the SMRDA would have provided for an enforceable right to compensation which could be considered an effective, sufficient and accessible remedy in respect of the applicant's complaint in respect of the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings (see, likewise, Osmanov and Yuseinov, cited above, § 41; Sidjimov, cited above, § 42, and Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 36, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  MAKEDONSKI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 40495/04

  FILIPOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 38299/05

  SPAS TODOROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 26461/06

  VALENTIN v. DENMARK