Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 14.02.2008

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06, 37346/05, 28899/04, 56793/00, 53988/07, 28583/03, 2930/04, 47829/99, 30481/05, 22381/05, 15154/02, 62722/00, 58497/00, 24720/04, 25805/05, 7254/02, 41140/05, 10905/04, 14226/04, 55350/00, 60939/00, 44626/98, 76763/01, 12499/05, 9161/02, 57641/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,26222
EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06, 37346/05, 28899/04, 56793/00, 53988/07, 28583/03, 2930/04, 47829/99, 30481/05, 22381/05, 15154/02, 62722/00, 58497/00, 24720/04, 25805/05, 7254/02, 41140/05, 10905/04, 14226/04, 55350/00, 60939/00, 44626/98, 76763/01, 12499/05, 9161/02, 57641/00 (https://dejure.org/2015,26222)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.09.2015 - 48059/06, 37346/05, 28899/04, 56793/00, 53988/07, 28583/03, 2930/04, 47829/99, 30481/05, 22381/05, 15154/02, 62722/00, 58497/00, 24720/04, 25805/05, 7254/02, 41140/05, 10905/04, 14226/04, 55350/00, 60939/00, 44626/98, 76763/01, 12499/05, 9161/02, 57641/00 (https://dejure.org/2015,26222)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. September 2015 - 48059/06, 37346/05, 28899/04, 56793/00, 53988/07, 28583/03, 2930/04, 47829/99, 30481/05, 22381/05, 15154/02, 62722/00, 58497/00, 24720/04, 25805/05, 7254/02, 41140/05, 10905/04, 14226/04, 55350/00, 60939/00, 44626/98, 76763/01, 12499/05, 9161/02, 57641/00 (https://dejure.org/2015,26222)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,26222) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AFFAIRES FINGER, DIMITROV ET HAMANOV ET 54 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA BULGARIE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CASES OF FINGER, DIMITROV AND HAMANOV AND 54 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

  • EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06
  • EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
  • EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06, 37346/05, 28899/04, 56793/00, 53988/07, 28583/03, 2930/04, 47829/99, 30481/05, 22381/05, 15154/02, 62722/00, 58497/00, 24720/04, 25805/05, 7254/02, 41140/05, 10905/04, 14226/04, 55350/00, 60939/00, 44626/98, 76763/01, 12499/05, 9161/02, 57641/00
  • EGMR - 48059/06
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (46)

  • EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 43391/18

    BARA v. ALBANIA

    In the first place, the procedural rules governing the examination of a claim for compensation must conform to the principle of fairness enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention (see Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, § 130, 10 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2019 - 33006/07

    RYABININ AND SHATALINA v. UKRAINE

    In accordance with Article 20 of the Protocol, the new provision applies from the date of its entry into force to all applications pending before the Court, except those declared admissible (see Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, § 68, 10 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 29476/06

    D.M.T. ET D.K.I. c. BULGARIE

    Dans plusieurs autres affaires similaires contre la Bulgarie, la Cour a déjà constaté que le droit interne n'offrait aucune autre voie de recours effective permettant d'accélérer le cours des poursuites pénales ou d'obtenir une compensation pour durée excessive de la procédure pénale (voir, avec les références, Dimitrov et Hamanov c. Bulgarie, nos 48059/06 et 2708/09, §§ 92-97, 10 mai 2011).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 45114/98

    BOJILOV AND 8 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

    Ces questions sont actuellement examinées dans les groupes d'affaires Kitov (37104/97) et Dimitrov et Hamanov (48059/06 et 2708/09).
  • EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 23470/05

    NICOLETA GHEORGHE c. ROUMANIE

    Au regard des circonstances particulière de l'espèce, elle considère que la poursuite de l'examen de l'affaire s'impose au nom du respect des droits de l'homme nonobstant la valeur de l'amende (environ 17 euros) qui était à l'origine du grief tiré de l'article 6 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Juhas Äuric c. Serbie, no 48155/06, §§ 56-58, 7 juin 2011 et Finger c. Bulgarie, no 37346/05, §§ 74-77, 10 mai 2011).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 51056/21

    OSSO v. BULGARIA

    Also, a request for fixing of time-limit could not provide effective redress in respect of delays resulting from courts' own failure to organise proper examination of the case, or in situations in which the proceedings had lasted too long without there being identifiable periods of inactivity (see Deyanov v. Bulgaria, no. 2930/04, §§ 69-70, 30 September 2010).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 13364/05

    KECHEV c. BULGARIE

    La disposition de l'article 239a fut reprise dans les articles 368-369 du CPP de 2006, puis elle fut abrogée en 2010 (voir aussi Dimitrov et Hamanov c. Bulgarie, nos 48059/06 et 2708/09, §§ 43-45, 10 mai 2011).
  • EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07

    YANCHEV v. BULGARIA

    Furthermore, having regard to the fact that similar issues have been resolved in other cases before it (see Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011) the Court considers that respect for human rights does not require it to continue the examination of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Scherer, cited above).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,54114
EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00 (https://dejure.org/2008,54114)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.02.2008 - 55350/00 (https://dejure.org/2008,54114)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Februar 2008 - 55350/00 (https://dejure.org/2008,54114)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,54114) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 28898/95

    HOLZINGER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    Even assuming that the "complaint about delays" under Article 217a of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 (see paragraph 47 above) could have speeded up the examination of the case after that date, it came too late to have a significant effect on the length of the proceedings as a whole (see Djangozov, § 52; Rachevi, §§ 66 and 67; Dimitrov, §§ 78 and 79; and Todorov, § 60, all cited above; as well as Holzinger v. Austria (no. 2), no. 28898/95, §§ 20 and 21, 30 January 2001).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

    RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    Nevertheless, to determine whether the time which has elapsed since this date is reasonable, the Court has to take account of the stage which the proceedings had reached at that point (see, among many other authorities, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 70, 23 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 36496/02

    KESYAN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    However, they did not adequately try to avert the dilatory behaviour of the applicant's son and may thus be considered responsible for the resulting delay (see Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004; Sokolov v. Russia, no. 3734/02, § 40, 22 September 2005; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, § 58, 19 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02

    KUSMIEREK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    However, they did not adequately try to avert the dilatory behaviour of the applicant's son and may thus be considered responsible for the resulting delay (see Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004; Sokolov v. Russia, no. 3734/02, § 40, 22 September 2005; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, § 58, 19 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 3734/02

    SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    However, they did not adequately try to avert the dilatory behaviour of the applicant's son and may thus be considered responsible for the resulting delay (see Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004; Sokolov v. Russia, no. 3734/02, § 40, 22 September 2005; and Kesyan v. Russia, no. 36496/02, § 58, 19 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 45950/99

    DJANGOZOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    Concerning the judicial stage, which started on 12 February 1990 and ended on 28 November 2001, the Court notes that in several judgments against Bulgaria it has found that until July 1999 - more than nine years after the beginning of the proceedings in issue and slightly less than seven years after the beginning of the period to be considered - Bulgarian law did not provide any remedies capable of accelerating civil proceedings (see Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 51, 8 July 2004; Rachevi, cited above, §§ 64, 65 and 101; Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, § 77, 23 September 2004; and Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 39832/98, § 59, 18 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 58828/00

    STEFANOVA c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    This procedure does not appear prima facie ineffective, but the Court must have regard to the specific circumstances of each case (see, mutatis mutandis, Stefanova v. Bulgaria, no. 58828/00, § 69, 11 January 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 58497/00

    HADJIBAKALOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    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 applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the litigation (see, among many other authorities, Hadjibakalov v. Bulgaria, no. 58497/00, § 48, 8 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47829/99

    DIMITROV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    Concerning the judicial stage, which started on 12 February 1990 and ended on 28 November 2001, the Court notes that in several judgments against Bulgaria it has found that until July 1999 - more than nine years after the beginning of the proceedings in issue and slightly less than seven years after the beginning of the period to be considered - Bulgarian law did not provide any remedies capable of accelerating civil proceedings (see Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 51, 8 July 2004; Rachevi, cited above, §§ 64, 65 and 101; Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, § 77, 23 September 2004; and Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 39832/98, § 59, 18 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

    TODOROV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 55350/00
    Concerning the judicial stage, which started on 12 February 1990 and ended on 28 November 2001, the Court notes that in several judgments against Bulgaria it has found that until July 1999 - more than nine years after the beginning of the proceedings in issue and slightly less than seven years after the beginning of the period to be considered - Bulgarian law did not provide any remedies capable of accelerating civil proceedings (see Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 51, 8 July 2004; Rachevi, cited above, §§ 64, 65 and 101; Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, § 77, 23 September 2004; and Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 39832/98, § 59, 18 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05

    FINGER v. BULGARIA

    However, it went on to say that this is just one factor to be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of their length (see Hadjibakalov, cited above, § 50; Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, § 40, 28 September 2006; and Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, § 57, 14 February 2008).

    Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, §§ 52-69, 14 February 2008.

  • EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06

    CASES OF FINGER, DIMITROV AND HAMANOV AND 54 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

    55350/00.
  • EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

    [ENG]

    The Court has already held that the enforcement stage is the second stage of the proceedings and that the right asserted does not actually become effective until enforcement (see Di Pede v. Italy, 26 September 1996, §§ 22, 24 and 26, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 197, ECHR 2006-V; and Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, § 53, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 30481/05

    [ENG]

    Having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 23, Series A no. 194-C; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, § 73, 14 February 2008; and Maria Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 10905/04, § 28, 18 March 2010).
  • EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 39855/03

    PAVLOVA v. BULGARIA

    The Court additionally notes that Bulgarian law does not provide any remedies capable of leading to an award of compensation in respect of excessive delays in civil proceedings (see, among other authorities, Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, § 82, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 33864/03

    KOTSEV AND ERMENKOVA v. BULGARIA

    Having regard to its findings under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 28 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 23, Series A no. 194-C; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, § 73, 14 February 2008; and Maria Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 10905/04, § 28, 18 March 2010).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 32455/05

    ROSITSA GEORGIEVA 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 Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008; Hadjibakalov v. Bulgaria, no. 58497/00, 8 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 5131/06

    [ENG]

    In view of its extensive and clear case law in respect of the violation of the above mentioned guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of Convention, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008, Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, ECHR 2007-VIII and Mihalkov v. Bulgaria, no. 67719/01, 10 April 2008), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 26560/05

    YAKIMOVI v. BULGARIA

    In view of its extensive and clear case law on length of civil proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
  • EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 27238/04

    VALCHEV v. BULGARIA

    In view of its extensive and clear case law on length of civil proceedings, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004; Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006; Kambourov v. Bulgaria, no. 55350/00, 14 February 2008), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 274/04

    JELEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 31952/05

    DIMITROV v. BULGARIA (II)

  • EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34686/05

    PRAMATAROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 27937/05

    PETROVI v. BULGARIA (II)

  • EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 34852/05

    SEMERDZHIEVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 37596/04

    YORDANOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 1113/04

    KRIVENCHEV v. BULGARIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht