Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARCHEVA AND SHTARBOVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  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, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  The Court reiterates that it has held on numerous occasions that paternity proceedings fall within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Rasmussen, cited above, § 33 and Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 18, § 45).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  In view of what was at stake for the second applicant in the present case, that is her right to have her paternity established or refuted and thus to have her uncertainty as to the identity of her natural father eliminated, the Court considers that the competent national authorities were required by Article 6 § 1 to act with particular diligence in ensuring the progress of the proceedings (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 41, ECHR 2002 I).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  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 and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  The Court notes that it has previously recognised that an action contesting paternity is a matter of family law and, accordingly, that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable in its "civil" law part (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 32).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  In the instant case, the Court considers that the hourly rate of EUR 70 is excessive and that a reduction of the same is appropriate (see, a contrario, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV; Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004 and Rachevi, cited above, § 111, where the Court found an hourly rate of EUR 50 reasonable).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  In the instant case, the Court considers that the hourly rate of EUR 70 is excessive and that a reduction of the same is appropriate (see, a contrario, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV; Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004 and Rachevi, cited above, § 111, where the Court found an hourly rate of EUR 50 reasonable).
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  The Court notes that in similar cases against Bulgaria it has found that a complaint based on the direct applicability of the Convention in Bulgarian law is not an effective remedy and neither is a "complaint about delays" under Article 217a of the Code of Civil Procedure (see Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 100, 23 September 2004).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  TOTEVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  In the instant case, the Court considers that the hourly rate of EUR 70 is excessive and that a reduction of the same is appropriate (see, a contrario, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV; Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004 and Rachevi, cited above, § 111, where the Court found an hourly rate of EUR 50 reasonable).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05

  FINGER v. BULGARIA

  In cases concerning chiefly delays occurring prior to July 1999 the Court did not find it necessary to determine whether the "complaint about delays" was an effective remedy on the basis that even if it was, it had been introduced too late to make up for the delay which had already accrued (see Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 52, 8 July 2004; Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 47829/99, § 78, 23 September 2004; Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, §§ 66, 67 and 100, 23 September 2004; Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 39832/98, § 60, 18 January 2005; Hadjibakalov, cited above, § 61; Babichkin v. Bulgaria, no. 56793/00, § 41, 10 August 2006; Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 54, 28 September 2006; Kuyumdzhiyan v. Bulgaria, no. 77147/01, § 47 in fine, 24 May 2007; Simizov v. Bulgaria, no. 59523/00, §§ 53 and 54, 18 October 2007; Kambourov, cited above, § 80; Jeliazkov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 9143/02, § 49, 3 April 2008; Givezov v. Bulgaria, no. 15154/02, § 38, 22 May 2008; Kuncheva v. Bulgaria, no. 9161/02, § 40, 3 July 2008; Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria, no. 20568/02, § 31, 2 July 2009; Kabakchievi v. Bulgaria, no. 8812/07, § 38, 6 May 2010; Kotseva-Dencheva v. Bulgaria, no. 12499/05, § 28, 10 June 2010; and Rosen Petkov v. Bulgaria, no. 65417/01, § 35, 2 September 2010).

  Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, §§ 41-48, 28 September 2006.

• EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06

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

  60939/00.
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 44158/19

  OMELCHENKO v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications

  The Government pointed to the opposing party's delaying tactics, but such tactics do not absolve authorities of their duty to ensure that proceedings are conducted expediently (see, among other authorities, Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 47, 28 September 2006, and Mincheva v. Bulgaria, no. 21558/03, § 68, 2 September 2010).

• EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 10919/20

  TRYETYAK v. UKRAINE

  However, this does not absolve the authorities of their duty to ensure that proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time (see, among other authorities, Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 47, 28 September 2006, and Mincheva v. Bulgaria, no. 21558/03, § 68, 2 September 2010).
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 32003/13

  SLADZEVSKIS v. LATVIA

  At the same time, the delaying tactics used by a party do not absolve the authorities from their duty to ensure that proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time (see Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 47, 28 September 2006, and Mincheva v. Bulgaria, no. 21558/03, § 68, 2 September 2010).
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 51683/19

  KILCHES v. AUSTRIA

  In this regard, the Court has held that even if the domestic authorities cannot be held responsible for the conduct of a respondent, the dilatory methods used by one of the parties do not relieve them of their obligation to ensure that the proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time (see Mincheva v. Bulgaria, no. 21558/03, § 68, 2 September 2010; and Kartcheva and Chtarbova v. Bulgaria, no. 60939/00, § 47, 28 September 2006).
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 21558/03

  MINCHEVA c. BULGARIE

  La Cour relève ensuite que l'examen de l'affaire en première instance a été retardé principalement à cause de l'incapacité persistante des autorités internes de citer valablement G.E. Or elle rappelle à cet égard que même si les autorités internes ne peuvent pas être tenues pour responsables du comportement d'un défendeur, les méthodes dilatoires utilisées par l'une des parties ne les dispensent pas de leur obligation d'assurer le déroulement de la procédure dans un délai raisonnable (voir, parmi d'autres, Kartcheva et Chtarbova c. Bulgarie, no 60939/00, § 47, 28 septembre 2006).