Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TANTILOVI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 39351/05

  The principle of legal certainty and respect for the res judicata effect of final judgments requires that no party should be entitled to seek review of a final and binding judgment merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing and a fresh determination of the case (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 30767/05

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 39351/05

  30767/05 and 33800/06, §§ 171-72, 12 October 2010; and Sivova and Koleva, cited above, §§ 97-98).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 65187/10

  BALAKCHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 39351/05

  The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning remedies in respect of the length of proceedings have been summarised in the Court's decisions in the cases of Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 65187/10, §§ 18-37, 18 June 2013) and Valcheva and Abrashev v. Bulgaria ((dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 30383/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 39351/05

  It has examined complaints similar to the one at hand in several cases against Bulgaria which concerned restitution under different legislation (see Kehaya and Others, cited above; Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria, no. 30383/03, 15 November 2011; and Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria, no. 37857/05, 17 June 2014).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 6194/11

  VALCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 39351/05

  6194/11 and 34887/11, §§ 47-66, 18 June 2013).
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 37857/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 39351/05

  It has examined complaints similar to the one at hand in several cases against Bulgaria which concerned restitution under different legislation (see Kehaya and Others, cited above; Sivova and Koleva v. Bulgaria, no. 30383/03, 15 November 2011; and Karaivanova and Mileva v. Bulgaria, no. 37857/05, 17 June 2014).
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 12664/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 39351/05

  In this regard the Court notes that a comparable scheme existed under other restitution legislation in Bulgaria, and in cases concerning that legislation's application the Court has also held that decisions on restitution cannot be considered to have given rise, in a final and binding manner, to property rights in respect of a given asset until affected third parties have had a chance to defend their interests (see Karaivanova and Mileva, cited above, §§ 74-76; Nedelcheva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 5516/05, §§ 56-57, 28 May 2013; and Kupenova and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12664/05, §§ 30-31, 7 May 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 5623/09

  TRAPEZNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court is not convinced that in the system so construed the judgments of the appeal level, although considered binding and enforceable within the meaning of domestic procedural law, acquired such stability that the successful party could not expect the other party not to have recourse to this remedy after having lost his or her case before the second instance courts (see, by contrast, Ryabykh, cited above, § 56, and, mutatis mutandis, Tantilova and Tantilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, § 34, 13 January 2015).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 50249/13

  GURMA v. ALBANIA

  It therefore did not contradict the ad personam aspect of the principle of respect for the res judicata effect of judgments (compare Podrugina and Yedinov. v. Russia (dec.), no. 39654/07, 17 February 2009; Tantilovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, § 36, 13 January 2015; and Guriţanu v. Moldova (dec.) [Committee], no. 75732/12, § 21, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 47405/07

  CHENGELYAN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In answering this question, the Court will not consider the Fund's participation in the second set of proceedings determinative, in view of the fact that it was only renting a room in the disputed building, did not claim any property rights, and that its interest in the proceedings was the defence of its possession of that room (see, a contrario, Tantilovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, 13 January 2015, where the tenant combatting a rei vindicatio claim had rented the building in question for many years and had made substantial improvements to it).
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 12486/12

  DEGTYAR v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

  Rn. 8 Therefore, the applicant's complaint under Article 6 § 1 is unsubstantiated (compare Ilieva and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 17705/05, §§ 40-42, 3 February 2015, and, mutatis mutandis, Tantilovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39351/05, §§ 35-38, 13 January 2015).