Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARAMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+6 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 Violation of Art. 13+6 Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of P1-1 Violation of Art. 13+P1-1 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 53321/99
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99
• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 53321/99

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  In reiterating its case-law that the seizure of property for legal proceedings relates to the control of the use of property, the Court finds that this complaint falls within the ambit of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 27).
• EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11763/85

  BANER c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  In respect of the lack of compensation for the interference under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court notes that such a right is not inherent in the second paragraph of that provision regarding the control of the use of property (see Banér v. Sweden, no. 11763/85, Commission decision of 9 March 1989, DR 60, p. 128, at p. 142).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  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, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  Thus, it considered that their complaint should be examined under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies against the interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possession, rather than under Article 6 of the Convention as an access to court issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294 B, p. 49, § 65).
• EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 47092/99

  EKIMDJIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  The Government referred in this respect to the alleged persistent practice of the domestic courts and the finding of the Court in the inadmissibility decision in the case of Ekimdjiev v. Bulgaria (no. 47092/99, 3 March 2005).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38106/02

  NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find it proven by the Government that in the circumstances of the present case an action under the SMRDA would have provided for an enforceable right to compensation which could be considered an effective, sufficient and accessible remedy in respect of the applicant's complaint in respect of the alleged excessive length of the criminal proceedings (see, likewise, Osmanov and Yuseinov, cited above, § 41; Sidjimov, cited above, § 42, and Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 36, 27 September 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court has found in a number of judgments that, apart from the above-mentioned remedy, there are no acceleratory remedies in respect of the length of criminal proceedings in Bulgaria (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, § 38, 23 September 2004; Mitev, cited above, §§ 158-59; Sidjimov, cited above, §§ 40-41; Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 48137/99, § 91, 1 December 2005; Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 34, 27 September 2007; Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, § 58, 10 January 2008; Atanasov and Ovcharov, cited above, §§ 56 and 57; Krasimir Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50899/99, § 35, 15 February 2007; Gavazov, cited above, §§ 164-65; Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 62, 22 May 2008; Kirov v. Bulgaria, no. 5182/02, § 81, 22 May 2008; Sheremetov, cited above, § 52; Balabanov, cited above, §§ 30 and 32; Myashev, cited above, § 22; Valentin Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 76942/01, § 36, 26 March 2009; and Yankov and Manchev, cited above, § 32).

  Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 53321/99, §§ 54-56, 10 January 2008.

• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 5359/04

  [FRE]

  Les parties pertinentes de la loi de 1988 sur la responsabilité de l'Etat et les communes pour les dommages causés aux particuliers (—°ºo½ ·° oÑ‚³o²oÑ€½oÑ�Ñ‚Ñ‚° ½° ´ÑŠÑ€¶°²°Ñ‚° o±Ñ‰½Ñ‚µ ·° ²Ñ€µ´, titre modifié en 2006) et la jurisprudence interne pertinente ont été présentées dans l'arrêt de la Cour Karamitrov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 53321/99, §§ 34-44, 10 janvier 2008.

  Toutefois, il s'agit d'une mesure qui restreint temporairement l'usage des biens et qui, dès lors, pour répondre aux exigences du l'article 1 du Protocole no 1, doit être prévue par la législation interne, poursuivre un but légitime et être proportionnée au but poursuivi (Karamitrov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 53321/99, § 72, 10 janvier 2008, Borjonov c. Russie, no 18274/04, § 59, 22 janvier 2009 et Petyo Petkov c. Bulgarie, no 32130/03, § 102, 7 janvier 2010).

• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 32130/03

  [FRE]

  Un résumé de la législation interne pertinente concernant la saisie de biens meubles comme preuves matérielles pour les besoins des poursuites pénales peut être trouvé dans l'arrêt Karamitrov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 53321/99, §§ 29 à 33, 10 janvier 2008.

• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 35989/02

  NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA

  However, in Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 53321/99, § 77, 10 January 2008) the Court considered with reference to Article 13 of the Convention that "when the authorities seize and hold chattels as physical evidence the possibility should exist in domestic legislation to initiate proceedings against the State and to seek compensation for any damage resulting from the authorities" failure to keep safe the said chattels in reasonably good condition" (compare Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey, no. 40998/98, §§ 87, 96-103, ECHR 2007-...; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 46 and 57, ECHR 1999-V; Urbárska Obec Trencianske Biskupice v. Slovakia, no. 74258/01, § 126, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Housing Association of War Disabled and Victims of War of Attica and Others v. Greece, no. 35859/02, § 39, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  ATANASOV AND OVCHAROV v. BULGARIA

  Thus, it considers that this complaint should be examined under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies against the interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, rather than under Article 6 of the Convention as an access to court issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Fayed v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 September 1994, Series A no. 294 B, p. 49, § 65, and Karamitrovi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 53321/99, 9 February 2006).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 5182/02

  KIROV c. BULGARIE

  Dans ces circonstances, elle n'estime pas établie l'existence d'un recours interne efficace et accessible pour obtenir une réparation en cas de méconnaissance du « délai raisonnable'exigé par l'article 6 (voir aussi Karamitrov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 53321/99, §§ 59-60, 10 janvier 2008).
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 43007/04

  KRAEV c. BULGARIE

  Elle a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, y compris dans des affaires dirigées contre la Bulgarie, sa pratique concernant les griefs relatifs à la violation du droit à être entendu dans un délai raisonnable, garanti par l'article 6 § 1, et du droit à une voie de recours interne effective, consacré par l'article 13 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Pélissier et Sassi c. France [GC], no 25444/94, § 67, CEDH 1999-II ; Sidjimov c. Bulgarie, no 55057/00, §§ 32 à 43, 27 janvier 2005 ; Karamitrov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 53321/99, §§ 54 à 61, 10 janvier 2008).