Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIDJIMOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 55057/00
• EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00

  Having regard to the criteria established in its case-law for the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings (see, among many others, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, 17 December 2004), the Court finds that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant failed to satisfy the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00

  Article 13 therefore offers an alternative: a remedy will be considered "effective" if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  OSMANOV AND YUSEINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00

  As the Court found in its Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria judgment (nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-42, 23 September 2004) at the relevant time there was no formal remedy under Bulgarian law that could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant.
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

  GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00

  In particular, the possibility to complain to the various levels of the prosecution authorities cannot be regarded as an effective remedy because such hierarchical complaints aim to urge the authorities to utilise their discretion and do not give the accused a personal right to compel the State to exercise its supervisory powers (see Gibas v. Poland, no. 24559/94, Commission decision of 6 September 1995, Decisions and Reports 82, p. 76, at p. 82, Kuchař and Štis v. Czech Republic (dec.), 37527/97, 23 May 2000, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, §§ 47 and 64, ECHR 2001-VIII and Hartman v. Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 45950/99

  DJANGOZOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00

  In these circumstances the Court does not consider it necessary to rule in the abstract whether the new Article 239a is an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 52, 8 July 2004).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 36036/04

  MAKEDONSKI v. BULGARIA

  As regards the time prior to this date the Court notes that in similar cases against Bulgaria it has found that at the relevant time there was no formal remedy under Bulgarian law that could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against the applicant (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-42, 23 September 2004; and Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 41, 27 January 2005).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 27207/04

  YANKOV AND MANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  The Court has previously found that until 2003 Bulgarian law did not provide remedies allowing those accused in criminal proceedings to expedite the determination of the charges against them (see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 38-40, 23 September 2004; Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 41, 27 January 2005; Nalbantova v. Bulgaria, no. 38106/02, § 34, 27 September 2007; and Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, § 56, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 30949/04

  DELOV v. BULGARIA

  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, Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 36, 27 January 2005 and Stefanov and Yurukov v. Bulgaria, no. 25382/04, § 17, 1 April 2010).

• EGMR, 04.02.2010 - 41008/04

  GERDZHIKOV v. BULGARIA

  The Government have not referred to the existence of any other relevant remedy under Bulgarian law, capable of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress (see Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, §§ 41-42, 27 January 2005, and Balabanov, cited above, §§ 32-33).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 40495/04

  FILIPOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court is not aware of the existence of any other relevant remedy under Bulgarian law capable of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress (see Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, §§ 41-42, 27 January 2005, and Balabanov, cited above, §§ 32-33).
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 38299/05

  SPAS TODOROV v. BULGARIA

  The Court notes that in similar cases against Bulgaria it has found that at the relevant time there was no formal remedy under Bulgarian law that could have prevented the alleged violation or its continuation, or provided adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Valentin Ivanov v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 34-37, Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 31-42, 23 September 2004; Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, §§ 37-43, 27 January 2005; and Nalbantova, cited above, §§ 32-36).
• 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).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIDJIMOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 55057/00
• EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00