Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VACHEV c. BULGARIE [Extraits]

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'art. 5-3 Violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation de l'art. 5-5 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 42987/98
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  The Court reiterates that the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be of a judicial nature, which implies that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation, failing which he will not have been afforded the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  The Court further notes that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4. There is no requirement that remedies that are neither adequate nor effective should be used (see Sakık and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2625, § 53; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 41, 9 January 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 30, § 54; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39; and Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  In previous judgments which concerned the system of detention pending trial as it existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, the Court has found that neither investigators before whom accused persons were brought, nor prosecutors who approved detention orders could be considered to be "officer[s] authorised by law to exercise judicial power" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Assenov and Others, cited above, pp. 3298-99, §§ 144-50, Nikolova, cited above, §§ 49-53 and Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 52-54, 9 January 2003).

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  The Court further notes that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4. There is no requirement that remedies that are neither adequate nor effective should be used (see Sakık and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2625, § 53; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 41, 9 January 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 30, § 54; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39; and Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  The Court further notes that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4. There is no requirement that remedies that are neither adequate nor effective should be used (see Sakık and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2625, § 53; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 41, 9 January 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 30, § 54; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39; and Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  The Court further notes that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4. There is no requirement that remedies that are neither adequate nor effective should be used (see Sakık and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2625, § 53; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 41, 9 January 2003; and, mutatis mutandis, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 30, § 54; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39; and Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 50358/99

  PEKOV v. BULGARIA

  A summary of the relevant domestic law may be found in paragraphs 51-55 of the Court's judgment in the case of Vachev v. Bulgaria (no. 42987/98, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).

  Accordingly, the Court holds that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies should be joined to the merits (see Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46221/99, 14 December 2000; and Vachev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 42987/98, 19 June 2003).

• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 2929/05

  SVETLORUSOV v. UKRAINE

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 (see Wassink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A, p. 14, § 38, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 79, ECHR 2004-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  SOLDATENKO v. UKRAINE

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  [FRE]

  Therefore, and in the absence of any comments by the parties on the matter, the Court accepts that the applicant's house arrest amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 62, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts); Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 40896/98, § 60, 30 September 2004; N.C. v. Italy, no. 24952/94, § 33, 11 January 2001; and Bárkányi v. Hungary, no. 37214/05, § 27, 30 June 2009) for the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (f) of that Article.
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 31.01.2019 - C-704/17

  D. H. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des …

  {FN:31} Vgl. Urteil des EGMR von 8. Juli 2004, Vachev/Bulgarien (ECHR:2004:0708JUD004298798, § 71).
• EGMR, 25.09.2007 - 34316/02

  DE CLERCK c. BELGIQUE

  Ils mentionnent plusieurs arrêts de la Cour dans lesquels celle-ci a sanctionné des durées d'instruction préparatoire, beaucoup moins longues que celle en l'espèce, notamment dans les affaires Stratégies et Communications et Dumoulin c. Belgique (no 37370/97, 15 juillet 2002) et Vachev c. Bulgarie (no 42987/98, 8 juillet 2004) (6 ans et 2 mois et 5 ans et 9 mois respectivement).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 41881/02

  BEHEYT c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 55861/00

  SVETOSLAV DIMITROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 50027/08

  PETKOV AND PROFIROV v. BULGARIA AND PETKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 20808/02

  SHALIMOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.02.2010 - 31849/05

  KAZYULIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.10.2009 - 39614/07

  VELISIOTIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33210/07

  DUBOVIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 23163/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 16880/02

  SHEREMETOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 26277/02

  NOSALSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03

  LOBANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 1108/02

  KOLEVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 12310/04

  ZYFLLI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 4785/02

  MIRONENKO AND MARTENKO v. UKRAINE

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 42987/98
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 42987/98

  If that is the case, the Court must then ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-53, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

  O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 42987/98

  Facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction, or even the bringing of a charge (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, §§ 34 and 36, ECHR 2001-X).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen