Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VLADIMIROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 51362/99

  ENEVA AND DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42617/02

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, 24 April 2008.

• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 48380/99

  TODOROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42617/02

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, 24 April 2008.

• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 73465/01

  TZILEVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42617/02

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, 24 April 2008.

• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 60036/00

  BOGDANOVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42617/02

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.

  48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01, 24 April 2008.

• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42617/02

  While mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy are not sufficient to dispense the applicant from the obligation to use it, the situation is different where it has been established, including on the basis of domestic practice, that the remedy in question has no reasonable prospects of success (see Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, 23 September 2003, § 34 and Sejdovic v. Italy, cited above, §§ 45-52).
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 43278/98

  VELIKOVI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42617/02

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 194/02

  NIKOLOVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42617/02

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 61330/00

  SHOILEKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42617/02

  The Court recalls that in other similar cases of the type of Velikovi and Others (cited above) it found that the relevant events must be seen as a continuing situation ending with the actual receipt by the applicants of compensation, if any (see Shoilekov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 61330/00, 66840/01 and 69155/01, 18 September 2007 and Velikovi and Others, cited above, § 161).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.11.2014 - 56753/00

  DIMITAR AND ANKA DIMITROVI AND 12 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

  42617/02.
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 40047/04

  [ENG]

  In its case-law the Court has considered that there were "continuing situations" bringing the case within its competence with regard to Article 35 § 1 where, inter alia, there were successive relevant events which continued at the time of introduction of the application or ended less than six months before that (see, for example, Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, decision of 29 January 2002, ECHR 2002 III; and Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, 26 February 2009) or where a legal provision gave rise to a permanent state of affairs in the form of a permanent limitation on an individual Convention-protected right, such as the right to vote or to stand for elections (see Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 83, 6 January 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 24096/05

  [ENG]

  In its case-law the Court has considered that there were "continuing situations" bringing the case within its competence with regard to Article 35 § 1 where, inter alia, there were successive relevant events which continued at the time of introduction of the application or ended less than six months before that (see, for example, Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, §§ 29-30, 26 February 2009) or where a legal provision gave rise to a permanent state of affairs in the form of a permanent limitation on an individual Convention-protected right, such as the right to vote or to stand for elections (see Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 83, 6 January 2011, with further references).

• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 50506/09

  TOMOV AND NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIA

  The Court has examined complaints concerning the effect of restitution on third parties in a number of cases against Bulgaria, most notably Velikovi and Others, cited above (see also, for example, Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria, no. 56753/00, 12 February 2009; Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, 26 February 2009; Peshevi v. Bulgaria, no. 29722/04, 2 July 2009; Madzharov v. Bulgaria, no. 40149/05, 2 September 2010; and Georgieva and Mukareva v. Bulgaria, no. 3413/05, 2 September 2010).
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 65688/12

  STEFANOVI v. BULGARIA

  Accordingly, the relevant six-month time-limit started running on the date of the final judgment in the tort proceedings, 4 April 2012, which means that the application was lodged in time (for a similar situation, see Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, §§ 28-30, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 10913/04

  GEORGIEVI v. BULGARIA

  Referring to the Supreme Court of Cassation's established practice, according to which such administrative omissions resulted in property titles being considered null and void, the Court concluded that any attempt by the applicants to argue before the Supreme Court of Cassation that the authorities" omission in their case should not result in their title being declared null and void had been bound to fail (see Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, §§ 10 and 24-27, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 29722/04

  PESHEVI v. BULGARIA

  However, as the Court found in Velikovi and Others, cited above, § 226, and in a number of subsequent cases (see Koprinarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 57176/00, § 31, 15 January 2009; Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria, no. 56753/00, § 31, 12 February 2009; and Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, § 40, 26 February 2009), owing to the instability of bond prices and frequent changes in the relevant rules, it could not be considered that at the time the bond scheme secured adequate compensation.
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 24186/04

  BACHVAROVI v. BULGARIA

  However, as the Court found in Velikovi and Others, cited above, § 226, and in a number of subsequent cases (see Koprinarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 57176/00, § 31, 15 January 2009; 2009; Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, § 40, 26 February 2009; and Peshevi v. Bulgaria, no. 29722/04, § 23, 2 July 2009), owing to the instability of bond prices and frequent changes in the relevant rules, it could not be considered that at the time the bond scheme secured adequate compensation.
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 30945/04

  KAYRIAKOVI v. BULGARIA

  Again, the Court held that, as there had been relevant developments concerning compensation, the events should be viewed as a continuing situation until the compensation issue was settled (see Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, § 30, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 19162/03

  YURUKOVA AND SAMUNDZHI v. BULGARIA

  She did not do so at that time, as in one of the applications examined in Velikovi and Others (see §§ 226-28) - the case of Tzilevi (see also the Court's judgments in other similar cases - Koprinarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 57176/00, 15 January 2009; Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria, no. 56753/00 12 February 2009; and Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 42617/02, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 33730/04

  ILARIA GEORGIEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 27636/04

  PANAYOTOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 26907/09

  SLAVCHEVA v. BULGARIA