Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OSMANOV AND YUSEINOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 54178/00
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00, 59901/00

Wird zitiert von ... (40)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• LG Düsseldorf, 13.08.2013 - 4a O 23/12

  Schadensersatzanspruch hinsichtlich Verletzung des Patents mit der Bezeichnung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  23/12/2004.
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  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 accused with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.)[GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  Having regard to its findings below, the Court considers that it is not necessary to determine this point (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 111, 26 July 2001).
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

  GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  However, the Court considers that the possibility to appeal to the various levels of the prosecution authorities cannot be regarded as an effective remedy because such hierarchical appeals 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. the Czech Republic (dec.), 37527/97, 23 May 2000, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, §§ 47 and 64, ECHR 2001-VIII and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  In a number of judgments, that Court has noted that before the introduction of Article 239a of the [1974] Code of Criminal Procedure our State did not make available a remedy complying with the requirements of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and capable of ensuring that the pre-trial phase of criminal proceedings does not exceed a reasonable time [(see Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria, nos. 54178/00 and 59901/00, 23 September 2004; Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, 22 December 2004; and Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, 27 January 2005)].

  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).

  54178/00 and 59901/00, §§ 23-30, 23 September 2004.

• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  ATANASOV AND OVCHAROV v. BULGARIA

  54178/00 and 59901/00, 4 September 2003).

  The Court notes that it has found in similar cases against Bulgaria that, in respect of the period before June 2003, there was no formal remedy under domestic legislation that could have expedited the determination of the criminal charges against the applicants (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, 22.03.2016 - 66568/09

  [FRE]

  Aussi, les requérants ne peuvent plus se prétendre victimes d'une violation de leur droit à un procès équitable (voir, en ce sens, Stamoulakatos c. Grèce (déc.), no 42155/98, 9 novembre 1999, et Osmanov et Husseinov c. Bulgarie (déc.), nos 54178/00 et 59901/00, 4 septembre 2003).

• EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  MITEV v. BULGARIA

  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.
• EGMR, 11.02.2025 - 29780/20

  COSTA I ROSSELLO v. SPAIN and 2 other applications

  54178/00 and 59901/00, 4 September 2003) and the Court cannot speculate whether the first applicant's acquittal will be confirmed or overturned on appeal.
• EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 59052/19

  GUIDI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

  54178/00 and 59901/00, 4 September 2003; Witkowski v Poland (dec.), no. 53804/00, 3 February 2003; and Bouglame v. Belgium (dec.), no. 16147/08, 2 March 2010).
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 44473/06

  HÁBENCZIUS v. HUNGARY

  As to the complaint about the unfairness of the proceedings and her failure to obtain a public hearing, the Court notes that, as a general rule, a person against whom criminal proceedings were discontinued cannot claim to be a victim of violations of the Convention which, according to her, took place in the course of the proceedings against him (see Osmanov and Husseinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 54178/00, 4 September 2003 and Komyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 7100/02, 8 January 2009).
• 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, 04.09.2018 - 30687/05

  TUGLUK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  En l'absence de condamnation et donc d'ingérence dans l'exercice par les requérants de leurs droits de la défense invoqués dans les griefs formulés ci-dessus, la Cour rejette cette partie de la requête pour défaut manifeste de fondement, en application de l'article 35 §§ 1 et 4 de la Convention (Eğinlioğlu c. Turquie, no 31312/96, décision de la Commission du 21 octobre 1998, Stamoulakatos c. Grèce (déc.), no 42155/98, 9 novembre 1999, et Osmanov et Husseinov c. Bulgarie (déc.), nos 54178/00 et 59901/00, 4 septembre 2003).
• EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02

  LUCHANINOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.11.2025 - 3942/24

  JELINIĆ-STARĆEVIĆ v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 4751/07

  METIS YAYINCILIK LIMITED SIRKETI ET SÖKMEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 33560/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 4570/05

  YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 29352/09

  CASTRAVET AND MUSIENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 15729/15

  FLOR LEMUS v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 1116/03

  DELEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 35549/04

  KOSTOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 19315/04

  ATANASOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 27776/04

  IVAN VATOV IVANOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 42953/06

  CHERVENYAKOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 27240/04

  RUMEN GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 33231/04

  KONOVSKI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 76942/01

  VALENTIN IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 7100/02

  KOMYAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 55057/00

  SIDJIMOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 24461/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 25798/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 8930/05

  IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 8919/05

  YORDANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 24572/05

  OGNYANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 2042/05

  POPOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 27397/05

  IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 43064/05

  ANTONOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 36504/05

  KIRYAKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 4551/05

  GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 30506/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 38299/05

  SPAS TODOROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 26461/06

  VALENTIN v. DENMARK