Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KABAKCHIEVI 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 ... (5)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  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, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants 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, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  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, 06.09.2005 - 70767/01

  PAVLYULYNETS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  The Court notes that in similar cases where reopening has been granted and as a result the same issue has been examined again and finally determined in the reopened proceedings, for the purposes of determining the period to be taken in consideration, it has taken into account the period before and after the reopening (see, among others, Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, no. 70767/01, § 41-42, 6 September 2005).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 45950/99

  DJANGOZOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  Therefore, its use could not have made up for the delays which had occurred prior to this date (see, among others, Djangozov v. Bulgaria, no. 45950/99, § 52, 8 July 2004 and Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 67, 23 September 2004).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 9161/02

  KOUNCHEVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  The Court has already found that the "complaint about delays" can be effective, 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 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 and Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria, no. 2380/03, §§ 30 and 31, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 58828/00

  STEFANOVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  The Court has already found that the "complaint about delays" can be effective, 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 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 and Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria, no. 2380/03, §§ 30 and 31, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 42138/02

  YAROSLAVTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  However, from this period the Court has discounted the periods between the adoption of final and binding judgments and their revocation in the course of extraordinary proceedings, since during these periods no dispute concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations has been pending (see, among other authorities, Pavlyulynets v. Ukraine, cited above, § 41 and Yaroslavtsev v. Russia, no. 42138/02, § 22, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 2380/03

  TZVYATKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  The Court has already found that the "complaint about delays" can be effective, 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 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 and Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria, no. 2380/03, §§ 30 and 31, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15154/02

  GIVEZOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 8812/07

  In respect of the above period the "complaint about delays" could not be considered as effective remedy (see paragraph 25 above and, 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).

  Kabakchievi v. Bulgaria, no. 8812/07, §§ 29-34 and 45-47, 6 May 2010.

• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 39034/04

  DORON AGAINST BULGARIA AND 12 OTHER CASES

  8812/07.
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 30481/05

  [ENG]

  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 Kabakchievi v. Bulgaria, no. 8812/07, 6 May 2010).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 20806/04

  TODOROVA v. BULGARIA (III)

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Bulgaria, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, 23 September 2004, Vatevi v. Bulgaria, no. 55956/00, 28 September 2006 and Kabakchievi v. Bulgaria, no. 8812/07, 6 May 2010).
• EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 28899/04

  ANTOANETA IVANOVA c. BULGARIE

  Or, compte tenu du fait que le retard essentiel a été provoqué par la Cour suprême de cassation et qu'il n'existe pas un tribunal supérieur, alors que le recours en question doit être introduit auprès du président du tribunal supérieur (paragraphe 21 ci-dessus), il n'est pas établi que cette voie de droit a été disponible au requérant (Pavlova c. Bulgarie, no 39855/03, § 31, 14 janvier 2010, Maria Ivanova c. Bulgarie, no 10905/04, § 35, 18 mars 2010, et Kabakchievi c. Bulgarie, no 8812/07, § 41, 6 mai 2010).