Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OGNYAN ASENOV v. BULGARIA

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  However, this was so because of the wording of the applicable law, whereas Article 13 of the Convention does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see, as a recent authority, Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 65, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  Referring to Croissant v. Germany (25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B), it expressed the view that that requirement did not run counter to Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.11.1978 - 6210/73

  Luedicke, Belkacem und Koç ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  It left the issue open, saying that it did not intend to establish whether and under what conditions the expenses associated with the provision of free legal assistance under Article 6 § 3 (c) could be awarded against or left to be borne by the accused after his or her conviction (see Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, 28 November 1978, § 44, Series A no. 29).

• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

  Pakelli ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  The Court thus lacks an adequate basis on which to conclude that throughout that time the applicant remained unable to reimburse the relatively modest fees of his counsel (see paragraphs 10 and 13 above and also, mutatis mutandis, P.W. v. Denmark, cited above, and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, § 34, Series A no. 64).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  It observes that the requirement for an individual who has been finally convicted to bear the costs of proceedings, including the fees and disbursements of his or her court-appointed counsel, flowed directly from the wording of Article 169 § 2 of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 18 above and, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 42 in limine, ECHR 1999-V).
• EKMR, 15.04.1996 - 20471/92

  KUSTANNUS OY VAPAA AJATTELIJA AB ET AUTRES c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  According to the Court's and the former Commission's established case-law, extraordinary remedies which depend on the discretionary power of a public authority cannot be regarded as effective (see, among many other authorities, Byloos v. Belgium, no. 14545/89, Commission decision of 9 October 1990, Decisions and Reports (DR) 66, p. 238; Kustannus Oy Vapaa Ajattelija AB and Others v. Finland, no. 20471/92, Commission decision of 15 April 1996, DR 85-A, p. 29, at p. 42; and Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 46, 21 July 2009).
• EKMR, 06.05.1982 - 9365/81

  X. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  The phrase "has not sufficient means to pay" does not, in the Commission's view, refer solely to the moment when the authorities decide whether to provide free legal assistance, but is relevant also at the time when it is being decided whether and to what extent the convicted individual has to pay the costs of the proceedings (see X v. Germany, no. 9365/81, Commission decision of 6 May 1982, DR 28, p. 229, and K. v. Germany, no. 11626/86, Commission decision of 6 May 1986, unreported).
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  According to the Court's and the former Commission's established case-law, extraordinary remedies which depend on the discretionary power of a public authority cannot be regarded as effective (see, among many other authorities, Byloos v. Belgium, no. 14545/89, Commission decision of 9 October 1990, Decisions and Reports (DR) 66, p. 238; Kustannus Oy Vapaa Ajattelija AB and Others v. Finland, no. 20471/92, Commission decision of 15 April 1996, DR 85-A, p. 29, at p. 42; and Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 46, 21 July 2009).
• EKMR, 09.10.1990 - 14545/89

  BYLOOS contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  According to the Court's and the former Commission's established case-law, extraordinary remedies which depend on the discretionary power of a public authority cannot be regarded as effective (see, among many other authorities, Byloos v. Belgium, no. 14545/89, Commission decision of 9 October 1990, Decisions and Reports (DR) 66, p. 238; Kustannus Oy Vapaa Ajattelija AB and Others v. Finland, no. 20471/92, Commission decision of 15 April 1996, DR 85-A, p. 29, at p. 42; and Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 46, 21 July 2009).
• EGMR, 15.06.1999 - 38986/97

  P.W. v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  In the present case, contrary to what the applicant seems to suggest, the question of costs did not adversely affect the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him (see P.W. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 38986/97, 15 June 1999; Schrieder v. Denmark (dec.), no. 32085/96, 6 April 2000; and Dmitrijevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 62390/00, 7 November 2002).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 32085/96

  SCHRIEDER v. DENMARK
• EKMR, 06.05.1986 - 11626/86

  K. v. THE GERMANY
• EKMR, 07.09.1993 - 19512/92

  PFISTER v. GERMANY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 21.05.2026 - C-230/25

  Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts …

  {FN:29} Urteil des EGMR vom 17. Februar 2011, 0gnyan Asenov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2011:0217JUD003815704).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 2033/04

  VALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  It follows that applications for judicial review of the NSSI's decisions were not an effective remedy that the applicants had to use (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 42 in limine, ECHR 1999-V; Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, § 86, 27 November 2007; and Ognyan Asenov v. Bulgaria, no. 38157/04, § 32, 17 February 2011).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 19552/05

  TODOROV c. BULGARIE

  Un résumé des dispositions de la législation interne relatives à la désignation d'un avocat d'office au cours du procès pénal et au paiement et recouvrement des frais et dépens engagés pendant la procédure pénale, ainsi qu'un aperçu de la jurisprudence des tribunaux internes en la matière, peuvent être trouvés dans l'arrêt Ognyan Asenov c. Bulgarie (no 38157/04, §§ 16-28, 17 février 2011).
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 15644/06

  GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  Counsel charged him a fee which cannot be regarded as excessive, and the applicant benefited from adequate representation - proved by the fact that he was eventually successful and obtained the quashing of the fines (see, mutatis mutandis, P.W. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 38986/97, 15 June 1999; Schrieder v. Denmark (dec.), no. 32085/96, 6 April 2000; Dmitrijevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 62390/00, 7 November 2002; and Ognyan Asenov v. Bulgaria, no. 38157/04, § 44, 17 February 2011).
• EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 19552/05

  TODOROV c. BULGARIE

  Le résumé des dispositions de la législation interne relatives à la désignation d'un avocat d'office au cours du procès pénal et aux paiement et recouvrement des frais et dépens engagés pendant la procédure pénale, ainsi qu'un aperçu de la jurisprudence des tribunaux internes en la matière, peuvent être trouvés dans l'arrêt Ognyan Asenov c. Bulgarie, no 38157/04, §§ 16-28, 17 février 2011.