Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ATANASOV AND OVCHAROV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13+6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13+6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 54178/00

  OSMANOV AND YUSEINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  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, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  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 applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  In respect of the lack of compensation for the interference under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court notes that the seizure of property for legal proceedings relates to the control of the use of property (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 27, and G., S. and M. v. Austria, no. 9614/81, Commission decision of 12 October 1983, Decisions and Reports (DR) 34, pp.

• EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

  FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  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).
• EKMR, 09.03.1989 - 11763/85

  BANER c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  122-23) and that such a right to compensation is not inherent in the second paragraph of that provision (see Banér v. Sweden, no. 11763/85, Commission decision of 9 March 1989, DR 60, p. 128, at p. 142).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38106/02

  NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  In view of the above, 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 applicants' complaint concerning 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).
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 53321/99

  KARAMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  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).
• EKMR, 12.10.1983 - 9614/81

  G., S. and M. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 61596/00

  In respect of the lack of compensation for the interference under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court notes that the seizure of property for legal proceedings relates to the control of the use of property (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, § 27, and G., S. and M. v. Austria, no. 9614/81, Commission decision of 12 October 1983, Decisions and Reports (DR) 34, pp.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06

  DIMITROV AND HAMANOV v. BULGARIA

  The bulk of the delay in Mr Dimitrov's case took place before the introduction of that remedy in June 2003 (see paragraphs 8-10 above), and could not have been remedied through it (see Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, § 158, 22 December 2004; Sidjimov v. Bulgaria, no. 55057/00, § 40, 27 January 2005; Karov v. Bulgaria, no. 45964/99, § 74 in fine, 16 November 2006; Vasilev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 61257/00, §§ 29 and 37-40, 8 November 2007; Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, §§ 57-58, 17 January 2008; Yankov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 70728/01, § 57, 7 February 2008; Gavazov v. Bulgaria, no. 54659/00, §§ 164-65, 6 March 2008; Ivan Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 32461/02, §§ 36-37 and 45-48, 20 March 2008; Balabanov v. Bulgaria, no. 70843/01, § 30, 3 July 2008; Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria, nos.

  Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, §§ 52-54, 17 January 2008.

• EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06

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

  61596/00.
• EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 33908/04

  BENET PRAHA, SPOL. S R.O., v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Consequently, the Court agrees with the Government that the seizure constituted control of the use of property and that paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable (see Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, § 74, 17 January 2008).

• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 23530/02

  IORDAN IORDANOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Dans une série d'arrêts rendus dans des affaires contre la Bulgarie, la Cour est parvenue à la conclusion que le recours prévu par l'article 239a du CPP ne pouvait être considéré comme une voie de recours effective au sens de l'article 13 combiné avec l'article 6 § 1 en raison notamment des retards importants accumulés dans le traitement des affaires pénales avant l'entrée en vigueur de cette disposition législative (voir Sidjimov c. Bulgarie, no 55057/00, § 40, 27 janvier 2005 ; Karov c. Bulgarie, no 45964/99, § 74, 16 novembre 2006 ; Atanassov et Ovtcharov c. Bulgarie, no 61596/00, § 58, 17 janvier 2008 ; Yankov c. Bulgarie (no 2), no 70728/01, § 57 in fine, 7 février 2008).
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 7896/15

  OOO SK STROYKOMPLEKS ET OOO SIGNAL c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle enfin que toute saisie entraîne par nature des dommages et n'implique pas en soi un droit d'être indemnisé pour tout dommage subi (Atanassov et Ovtcharov c. Bulgarie, no 61596/00, § 43, 17 janvier 2008, et Simonjan-Heikinheimo c. Finlande, (déc.), no 6321/03, 2 septembre 2008), mais le préjudice subi ne doit pas dépasser les limites de l'inévitable (Borjonov c. Russie, no 18274/04, § 61, 22 janvier 2009, avec les références citées).
• 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, 17.09.2019 - 78494/14

  NIKOLAYENKO ET GRINEVA c. RUSSIE et 1 autre affaire

  Par ailleurs, la saisie comme une forme de réglementation de l'usage des biens n'implique pas en soi un droit d'être indemnisé pour tout dommage subi (Atanassov et Ovtcharov c. Bulgarie, no 61596/00, § 43, 17 janvier 2008, et Simonjan-Heikinheimo c. Finlande, (déc.), no 6321/03, 2 septembre 2008).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 27402/05

  NACHEV v. BULGARIA

  The domestic law provisions concerning remedies in respect of length of criminal proceedings have been summarized in paragraphs 34-42 of the Court's judgment in the case of Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, 17 January 2008.
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 31555/05

  BENET CZECH, SPOL. S R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Consequently, the Court agrees with the Government that the seizure constituted a control of the use of property and that the paragraph 2 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is applicable (see Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, § 74, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 48786/09

  AVENDI OOD v. BULGARIA

  Thus, the interference with property rights in the present case can be examined as a constituent element of the procedure for controlling the use of goods subject to excise duty (see, mutatis mutandis, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 51, Series A no. 108, and Bowler International Unit v. France, no. 1946/06, § 41, 23 July 2009), as a measure for securing the payment of taxes or penalties (see, mutatis mutandis, Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands, 23 February 1995, § 59, Series A no. 306-B) and as a measure for securing physical evidence in ongoing administrative and criminal proceedings (see Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria, no. 61596/00, § 72, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 1116/03

  DELEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 21205/04

  ILIYA KOLEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 76942/01

  VALENTIN IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 39034/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 37714/03

  GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 39964/03

  ZLATEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 2446/15

  ALEKSEYEVY c. RUSSIE