Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUYUMDZHIYAN v. BULGARIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 77147/01

  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, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 77147/01

  It is true that the Bulgarian authorities, who did not remain idle and several times urged the Russian authorities to execute the letter rogatory (see paragraph 15 above), cannot be held accountable for the latter's failure to do so (see Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 149-51, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 77147/01

  However, the Court notes that this complaint relates to the same facts as the one based on Article 6 § 1. Having regard to its conclusion in paragraph 39 above, it does not consider that it must deal with it (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23; Kroenitz v. Poland, no. 77746/01, § 37, 25 February 2003; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 82, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 40476/98

  YANAKIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 77147/01

  The Court notes that, despite the terminological similarity with such proceedings in Russia and Ukraine, review proceedings before the former Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation in Bulgaria were not extraordinary proceedings, but part of the normal three-instance proceedings (see paragraphs 22-24 above and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 65, 10 August 2006, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.02.2003 - 77746/01

  KROENITZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 77147/01

  However, the Court notes that this complaint relates to the same facts as the one based on Article 6 § 1. Having regard to its conclusion in paragraph 39 above, it does not consider that it must deal with it (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23; Kroenitz v. Poland, no. 77746/01, § 37, 25 February 2003; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 82, 30 September 2004).
• EGMR, 02.08.2000 - 32675/96

  IKANGA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 77147/01

  However, the Court cannot overlook the facts that because of this problem the proceedings grinded to a halt for almost six years (see, mutatis mutandis, Ikanga v. France, no. 32675/96, § 20 in fine, 2 August 2000) and that the Bulgarian courts were not powerless in the face of this apparent deadlock.

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).

  Kuyumdzhiyan v. Bulgaria, no. 77147/01, §§ 33-39, 24 May 2007.

• EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06

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

  77147/01.
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 9161/02

  KOUNCHEVA c. BULGARIE

  En l'espèce, dans la mesure où les principaux retards dans le cours de la procédure, qui ont motivé le constat de violation de l'article 6 § 1 (paragraphes 28-30 ci-dessus), sont survenus avant l'adoption l'article 217a, la Cour estime que le recours ainsi instauré n'était pas en mesure de réparer ou d'apporter une compensation pour les retards déjà intervenus (voir Simizov c. Bulgarie, no 59523/00, § 56, 18 octobre 2007 ; Kouyoumdjïan c. Bulgarie, no 77147/01, § 47, 24 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 9143/02

  JELIAZKOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  En l'espèce, dans la mesure où des retards importants dans le cours de la procédure, qui ont motivé le constat de violation de l'article 6 § 1 (paragraphes 36-38 ci-dessus), étaient déjà intervenus au moment de l'adoption de l'article 217a, la Cour estime que le recours ainsi instauré n'était pas en mesure de réparer ou d'apporter une compensation pour les retards déjà intervenus (voir Simizov c. Bulgarie, no 59523/00, § 56, 18 octobre 2007 ; Kouyoumdjïan c. Bulgarie, no 77147/01, § 47, 24 mai 2007).