Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 65417/01
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01
• EGMR - 65417/01 (anhängig)

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DEMIREVI CONTRE LA BULGARIE ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  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

  DEMIREVI AGAINST BULGARIA AND 2 OTHER CASES

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 27918/02
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 27918/02, 2380/03, 65417/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 2380/03

  TZVYATKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 27918/02

  2380/03.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROSEN PETKOV 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)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.09.2008 - 65417/01
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01
• EGMR - 65417/01

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  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, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  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, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  A remedy is effective if it prevents the alleged violation or its continuation or provides adequate redress for any breach that has already occurred (ibid., § 158, and Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  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 Frydlender, cited above and Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 45950/99

  DJANGOZOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  Therefore, the use of the "complaint about delays" procedure might have speeded up the examination of the case but could not have made up for the delays which had occurred prior to its introduction and had already had a significant impact on the overall duration of the proceedings (see, among others, Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 52, 8 July 2004 and Rachevi v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 9161/02

  KOUNCHEVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  The Court notes its case-law that a "complaint about delays" (see paragraphs 21 and 22 above), can in principal be regarded as an effective remedy for the speeding up of the proceedings, but that regard must be had to the specific circumstances of each case (see Stefanova v. Bulgaria, no. 58828/00, § 69, 11 January 2007 and Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria, no. 2380/03, §§ 30 and 31, 22 October 2009) and to the impact that its use may have on the overall duration of the proceedings (see Kuncheva v. Bulgaria, no. 9161/02, § 40, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 58828/00

  STEFANOVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  The Court notes its case-law that a "complaint about delays" (see paragraphs 21 and 22 above), can in principal be regarded as an effective remedy for the speeding up of the proceedings, but that regard must be had to the specific circumstances of each case (see Stefanova v. Bulgaria, no. 58828/00, § 69, 11 January 2007 and Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria, no. 2380/03, §§ 30 and 31, 22 October 2009) and to the impact that its use may have on the overall duration of the proceedings (see Kuncheva v. Bulgaria, no. 9161/02, § 40, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 2380/03

  TZVYATKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  The Court notes its case-law that a "complaint about delays" (see paragraphs 21 and 22 above), can in principal be regarded as an effective remedy for the speeding up of the proceedings, but that regard must be had to the specific circumstances of each case (see Stefanova v. Bulgaria, no. 58828/00, § 69, 11 January 2007 and Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria, no. 2380/03, §§ 30 and 31, 22 October 2009) and to the impact that its use may have on the overall duration of the proceedings (see Kuncheva v. Bulgaria, no. 9161/02, § 40, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15154/02

  GIVEZOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 65417/01

  Furthermore, after the delivery of the Plovdiv Regional Court's judgment in December 1999 the main delay in the proceedings was due to the remittal of the case in 2001 and the reopening (see paragraphs 11 and 14-17 above), in respect of which the "complaint about delays" cannot be considered an effective remedy (see mutatis mutandis, Givezov v. Bulgaria, no. 15154/02, § 38, 22 May 2008).

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).

  Rosen Petkov v. Bulgaria, no. 65417/01, §§ 25 and 27-29, 2 September 2010.