AMENDMENT OF THE CASE-LAW OF COURTS IN BULGARIA ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A RESOLUTION ON ART. 6 OF EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Tsveta Мarkova

Abstract


Cilvēktiesību ievērošana saskaņā ar Eiropas Cilvēktiesību konvenciju ir viens no svarīgākajiem Eiropas Savienības kopējās politikas veidošanas un pakāpeniskas attīstības priekšnoteikumiem. Minētā prioritāte ir iespējama tikai tad, ja dalībvalstis un to iestādes vienveidīgi un konsekventi ievēro konvencijā un tās protokolos noteiktās prasības, saskaņā ar Monteskjē noteikto varas dalīšans principu dažādās sabiedrisko attiecību jomās. Galvenā uzmanība rakstā pievērsta Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas lēmumam saistībā ar šīs konvencijas 6. panta pārkāpumu, jo konkrētajam lēmumam par tiesībām uz taisnīgu tiesu būtu jātstāj paliekoša ietekme uz nacionālo tiesu praksi. Jautājums ir aktuāls, jo skar stabilitāti un labklājību Eiropā, kontekstā ar migrācijas dinamiku un ģeopolitisko attīstību.

Full Text:

PDF

References


http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"documentcollectionid2":["GRANDCHAMBER","CHAMBER"]}

Rеsolution ResDH(2000)109, Rеsolution ResDH(2000)110, Rеsolution CM/ResDH(2007)158, Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)121, Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)164, Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)165, Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)166, Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)167, Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)151).

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)183 Penev against Bulgaria.

See Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)157 Hovanesian against Bulgaria.

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)101 Seidova and others against Bulgaria.

see Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)239 Atanasova v. Bulgaria;

See, e.g., Resolution of the COM of March 2013 on Al-Nashif group: „4. noted with satisfaction the evolution of the domestic courts’ practice and the legislative amendments introducing judicial review of expulsion orders based on considerations of national security and reforming the system of detention pending such expulsion“.

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)100, Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)156 Ignatov, Gochev and Nalbantski against Bulgaria, Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)2.

“1. noted with satisfaction that the Bulgarian authorities have amended the provisions of the Ministry of Interior Act governing the use of fire-arms by the police and that the new legislative framework seems to comply with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in the light of the Court’s case-law“.

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)40 „Тодев“ Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)189 CM/ResDH(2010)40.

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)8.

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)99.

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)119, Dimitrov-Kazakov against Bulgaria.

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)258.

The Deputies …:

„1. recalled their decision adopted during their 1150th meeting (DH) (September 2012) according to which the administrative compensatory remedy recently adopted by the authorities and the judicial compensatory remedy proposed in the field of length of proceedings, taken together, seem capable of meeting the main requirements of the case-law of the Court;

noted with satisfaction the adoption by the Bulgarian Parliament, on 28 November 2012, of the legislative amendments aimed at introducing the above-mentioned judicial remedy; noted in this respect that according to the information submitted, the adopted provisions are identical to those already assessed by the Committee, except for those relating to the competent courts; invited the authorities to keep the Committee informed about the entry into force of the adopted provisions and to provide it with their translation;18/06.2013.

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)102.

See Rеsolution CM/ResDH(2012)153 Mincheva against Bulgaria, Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)162 Bevacqua against Bulgaria, Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)22.

See Rеsolution CM/ResDH(2012)169 Boychev and others against Bulgaria, Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)193 Hassan et Tchaouch et Haut Conseil Spirituel de la communauté musulmane contre Bulgarie.

See Rеsolution CM/ResDH(2012)150 Bulinvar OD and Hrusanov against Bulgaria;

See Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)149;

See, e.g, Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)98 Kashavelov case against Bulgaria, Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)160 Simeonov against Bulgaria.

See Yordanova and Toshev v. Bulgaria, №5126/05, § 65, 2.10.2012.

See, among others, Csősz v. Hungary, № 34418/04, § 33, 29.01.2008.

See Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands, 17.12.1996., 1996-VI, § 52; Chevrol v. France, № 49636/99, § 77, 2003-III; I.D. v. Bulgaria, № 43578/98, § 45, 28.04.2005.; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, № 49429/99, § 98, 24.11.2005.; Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic, № 72034/01, § 107, 31.07.2008., Putter v. Bulgaria, № 38780/02, § 47, 2.12.2010.

See mutatis mutandis, Стефан.

See Csősz v. Hungary.

See mutatis mutandis, Обермайер, § 70; I.D. v. Bulgaria, § 53; Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, § 104.

See Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10.07.1998., § 76, 1998-IV; Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom, № 28901/95, § 61, 2000-II; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, № 44787/98, § 68, 2001-IX; Devenney v. the United Kingdom, № 24265/94, § 26, 19.03.2002.; Dağtekin and Others v. Turkey, № 70516/01, § 34, 13.12.2007.

See Raza v. Bulgaria, № 31465/08, § 53, 11.02.2010.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17770/acj.v3i76.2859

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Administrative and Criminal Justice