Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 43428/02

  MYASHEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  It notes that it has frequently found violations of Article 13 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, with further references, Myashev v. Bulgaria, no. 43428/02, §§ 22 and 23, 8 January 2009, and Yankov and Manchev, cited above, §§ 32-34).

• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  Thus, whilst "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 may in general be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", it may in some instances take the form of other measures which carry the implication of such an allegation and which likewise substantially affect the situation of the suspect (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51 and Corigliano v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 34, Series A no. 57).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  Thus, whilst "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 may in general be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", it may in some instances take the form of other measures which carry the implication of such an allegation and which likewise substantially affect the situation of the suspect (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51 and Corigliano v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 34, Series A no. 57).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  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.).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  Thus, whilst "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 may in general be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", it may in some instances take the form of other measures which carry the implication of such an allegation and which likewise substantially affect the situation of the suspect (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51 and Corigliano v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 34, Series A no. 57).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  OSMANOV AND YUSEINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see, among many others, Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, § 30, 23 September 2004 and Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaira, cited above §§ 17-26).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 27207/04

  YANKOV AND MANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  Having regard to these facts and applying the principles set out above, the Court finds that in the present case the second, third and fourth applicants' situation was "substantially affected" and they could be considered as subject to a "charge" from the moment when they were questioned by the police and confessed to the theft (see, with further reference, Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria, nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05, §§ 17-18 and §§ 23-24, 22 October 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19

  TULEYA v. POLAND

  Thus, for example, a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (see, among other authorities, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2010), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (see Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 February 2010; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, § 23, 23 September 2010; and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 296, 13 September 2016) and a person who has been formally charged, under a procedure set out in domestic law, with a criminal offence (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 66, ECHR 1999-II, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 44, ECHR 2004-XI) can all be regarded as being "charged with a criminal offence" and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, §§ 20-24 and 26-28, 23 September 2010.
• EGMR, 28.02.2019 - 4755/16

  BEGHAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Thus, for example, a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (see, among other authorities, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2010), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (see Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 February 2010; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, § 23, 23 September 2010; and Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 296) and a person who has been formally charged, under a procedure set out in domestic law, with a criminal offence (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 66, ECHR 1999-II, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 44, ECHR 2004-XI) can all be regarded as being "charged with a criminal offence" and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 69729/12

  FILKIN v. PORTUGAL

  Ainsi, une personne arrêtée parce qu'elle est soupçonnée d'avoir perpétré une infraction pénale (Brusco c. France, no 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 octobre 2010), une personne soupçonnée, interrogée sur son implication dans des faits constitutifs d'une infraction pénale (Heaney et McGuinness c. Irlande, no 34720/97, § 42, CEDH 2000 XII, Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 février 2010, Yankov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 4570/05, § 23, 23 septembre 2010, et Schmid-Laffer c. Suisse, no 41269/08, §§ 30-31, 16 juin 2015), une personne interrogée parce qu'elle est soupçonnée d'être impliquée dans une infraction, mais traitée comme un témoin (Kaleja c. Lettonie, no 22059/08, §§ 36-41, 5 octobre 2017), ainsi qu'une personne formellement inculpée d'une infraction pénale dans le cadre d'une procédure prévue par le droit interne (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Pélissier et Sassi c. France [GC], no 25444/94, § 66, CEDH 1999-II, et Pedersen et Baadsgaard c. Danemark [GC], no 49017/99, § 44, CEDH 2004-XI), peuvent toutes être considérées comme « accusées'et prétendre à la protection de l'article 6. C'est la survenance même du premier de ces événements, indépendamment de leur ordre chronologique, qui déclenche l'application de l'article 6 sous son volet pénal (Simeonovi, précité, § 111).
• EGMR, 10.06.2025 - 41120/17

  K.V. MEDITERRANEAN TOURS LIMITED v. TURKEY

  Rn. 87 As regards the applicant company's allegation under Article 13 relating to the lack of effective remedy to challenge the participation of a third party to the proceedings, in the absence of an arguable claim under Article 6 in that respect, this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 (see, for example, Mošať v. Slovakia, no. 27452/05, § 29, 21 September 2010, and Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, § 37, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 22.02.2017 - 20484/05

  ARABADZHIEV ET ALEXIEV ET 33 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA BULGARIE

  4570/05.
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 52833/19

  DUBOIS c. FRANCE

  Dans Simeonovi, précité, § 111, elle a également précisé qu'une personne soupçonnée, interrogée sur son implication dans des faits constitutifs d'une infraction pénale peut être considérée comme « accusée'et prétendre à la protection de l'article 6 de la Convention (voir également Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 février 2010, Yankov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 4570/05, § 23, 23 septembre 2010, et Ibrahim et autres, précité, § 296).
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 18669/08

  PAUNOSKI v. THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

  In view of the principles developed in its case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 142, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, §§ 21-23, 23 September 2010) the Court finds that the period to be taken into consideration, for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, started to run on 18 June 2001, when the applicant was heard by the investigating judge for the first time (see paragraph 9 above), and ended on 20 May 2008, when the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's application for extraordinary review of the final judgment.
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 83700/17

  WANG c. FRANCE

  Dans Simeonovi, précité, § 111, elle a également précisé qu'une personne soupçonnée, interrogée sur son implication dans des faits constitutifs d'une infraction pénale peut être considérée comme « accusée'et prétendre à la protection de l'article 6 de la Convention (voir également Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 février 2010, Yankov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 4570/05, § 23, 23 septembre 2010, et Ibrahim et autres, précité, § 296).
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 10917/15

  SASSI c. FRANCE et 1 autre affaire

  Ainsi, à titre d'exemple, une personne arrêtée parce qu'elle est soupçonnée d'avoir commis une infraction pénale (voir, parmi d'autres, Heaney et McGuinness c. Irlande, no 34720/97, § 42, CEDH 2000-XII, et Brusco, précité, §§ 47-50), une personne soupçonnée et interrogée sur son implication dans des faits constitutifs d'une infraction pénale (Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 février 2010, Yankov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 4570/05, § 23, 23 septembre 2010, et Ibrahim et autres, précité, § 296) ou une personne formellement inculpée, selon les modalités du droit interne, d'une infraction pénale (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Pélissier et Sassi c. France [GC], no 25444/94, § 66, CEDH 1999-II, et Pedersen et Baadsgaard c. Danemark [GC], no 49017/99, § 44, CEDH 2004-XI), peuvent toutes être considérées comme « accusées d'une infraction pénale'et prétendre à la protection de l'article 6 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13510/14

  SEVERINI v. SAN MARINO