Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRESCHER v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P4-2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 6767/04

  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, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 6767/04

  However, the Court accepts that the applicant's situation was substantially affected on 14 December 1995, when she was arrested by the German authorities in connection with the extradition proceedings against her (see Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, §§ 52 and 53, Series A no. 56).
• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 33914/02

  SKOROBOGATOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 6767/04

  However, the Court notes that only those periods when the case was actually pending, that is, the periods when there had been no effective decision in the determination of the charges against the applicant and when the authorities were under an obligation to take such a decision, should be taken into account (see, mutatis mutandis, Skorobogatova v. Russia, no. 33914/02, § 39, 1 December 2005).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 34383/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 6767/04

  Such a measure must strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, § 44, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14480/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 6767/04

  However, having regard to the reasons for which it found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see, in particular, paragraph 50 above), the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the same facts again by reference to Article 8 (see Riener, cited above, § 134, and A. E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, §§ 53 and 54, 31 March 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 8802/12

  AL-ZUBAIDI v. POLAND

  Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 20, 000 (twenty thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law in similar cases (see, inter alia, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, (...), 23 May 2006, Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, (...), 26 November 2009, Miażdżyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, (...), 24 January 2012, Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, (...), 7 June 2011).

  As already stated in the jurisprudence of the Court in similar cases, it is not necessary to scrutinize separately the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the prohibition of leaving the country imposed on the applicant (see, inter alia, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 134, 23 May 2006, A. E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, §§ 53-54, 31 March 2009, Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 56, 7 June 2011).

  As regards the complaint communicated under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that in view of the Government's acknowledgement of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, it is no longer necessary to examine the facts of the case also under Article 8 of the Convention (see Riener v. Bulgaria, § 134, A. E. v. Poland, §§ 53 and 54, and Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 56, all cited above).

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 65709/09

  ZALUSKA v. POLAND

  Simultaneously the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 50, 000 (fifty thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law (see, among others, Miażdżyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, judgment of 24.01.2012; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, judgment of 7.06.2011, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, judgment of 23.05.2006).

  In the previous similar cases before the Court it was found unnecessary to scrutinize essentially the same facts and decisions also under Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the prohibition of movement (see, Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 134, 23 May 2006, A. E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, §§ 53-54, 31 March 2009, Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 56, 7 June 2011, A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 54, 31 March 2009).

  As regards the complaint communicated under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that in view of the Government's acknowledgement of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, it is no longer necessary to examine the facts of the case also under Article 8 of the Convention (see Riener v. Bulgaria, § 134, A. E. v. Poland, §§ 53 and 54 and Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 56, all cited above).

• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 43978/09

  [FRE]

  - pending criminal proceedings (see Schmidt v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012);.

• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has examined the proportionality of travel restrictions which were imposed in various contexts: a travel ban imposed as a measure of police supervision of a person suspected of having connections with the Mafia (see Labita, cited above, §§ 193-197); the seizure, as part of the on-the-spot investigation, and subsequent confiscation of a passport of a person who was neither prosecuted nor considered to be a witness in the criminal proceedings (see Baumann, cited above, §§ 65-67); a prohibition on a bankrupt moving away from his place of residence for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2003-IX); the seizure of the applicant's passport for refusal to pay a fine for a customs offence (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, §§ 78-82, 13 November 2003); an obligation not to abscond imposed on a suspect pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among many other examples, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 39-47, 13 October 2005; Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006; Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 60-69, 10 July 2008; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, §§ 39-46, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 47-52, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, §§ 33-42, 24 January 2012); travel restrictions imposed for refusal to pay a tax debt (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, §§ 118-130, 23 May 2006); travel restrictions imposed on account of knowledge of State secrets (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 44-52, ECHR 2006-XV, and Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 46-54, 10 February 2011); court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 214-215, 27 September 2011); and a travel ban imposed on account of a breach of the immigration rules of another country (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, §§ 33-37, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 13.12.2018 - 66650/13

  MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 10 other applications

  However, having regard to its finding in respect of the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the same facts again by reference to Article 8 (see Riener, cited above, § 134; A. E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, § 54, 31 March 2009; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 56, 7 June 2011; and Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, § 52, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 13.05.2025 - 37055/22

  SPITERI v. MALTA

  Rn. 89 It further observes that it has previously found in a series of cases that such an obligation imposed on the applicants was disproportionate in cases where the duration of the obligation not to leave the area of residence or the territory of the respondent State varied between more than five years (see Prescher v. Bulgaria no. 6767/04, § 47, 7 June 2011, and Rosengren v. Romania, no. 70786/01, § 38, 24 April 2008) and more than ten years (see Riener, cited above, §§ 106, and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 96, 7 December 2006).
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 41738/19

  NASYROV v. LITHUANIA

  Rn. 31 The measures restricting the applicant's freedom to leave Lithuania lasted for approximately six months (see paragraph 26 above; compare and contrast Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, § 47, 7 June 2011; Riener, cited above, § 106), and during that time he was able to temporarily change his place of residence from Vilnius to Palanga several times (see paragraphs 14 and 19 above), and he once left the country before returning (see paragraph 7 above).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  POPOVICIU v. ROMANIA

  The Court has previously found in a series of cases that such an obligation imposed on the applicants was disproportionate in cases where the duration of an obligation not to leave the territory of the respondent State varied between more than five years (see Prescher v. Bulgaria no. 6767/04, § 47, 7 June 2011) and more than ten years (see Riener, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 47921/08

  AZYUKOVSKA v. UKRAINE

  It is an established principle of the Court's case-law that only the periods when proceedings are actually pending can be taken into account for the purpose of determining the length of proceedings (see, for example, Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 33 and 34, 7 June 2011).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 24733/04

  PFEIFER AND 1 OTHER CASE AGAINST BULGARIA

  6767/04.
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 36077/14

  BEVC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 23592/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 30256/15

  FASOLKO v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 39435/08

  MUNTEANU v. ROMANIA