Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IORGOV v. BULGARIA (no. 2)

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 5-4 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IORGOV c. BULGARIE (n° 2)

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 3 (volet matériel) Non-violation de l'art. 5-4 Partiellement irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  Article 3 of the Convention requires the State to ensure that all prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for their human dignity, and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  It is enough for the purposes of Article 3 that a life sentence is de jure and de facto reducible (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 98, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  The Court has nevertheless found that imposing an irreducible life sentence on an adult, depriving him of any hope of release, might raise an issue under Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Nivette v. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; and Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002).

• EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00

  SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  Imposing a life sentence on an adult offender is not, in itself, prohibited by Article 3 or any other provision of the Convention or incompatible therewith (see, among many other authorities, Bamber v. the United Kingdom, no. 13183/87, Commission decision of 14 December 1988, and Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 03.07.2001 - 44190/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  The Court has nevertheless found that imposing an irreducible life sentence on an adult, depriving him of any hope of release, might raise an issue under Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Nivette v. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; and Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002).
• EKMR, 06.05.1978 - 7994/77

  KOTALLA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  Furthermore, the commutation of a death penalty to a life sentence by a non-judicial organ exercising the power of clemency does not alter the cause-and-effect relationship between the initial conviction and the individual's continued detention, which continues to be considered as "detention after conviction by a court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 a) (Kotälla v. the Netherlands, no. 7994/77, Commission decision of 6 May 1978, Decisions and Reports no. 14, p. 238).
• EGMR, 10.12.2002 - 53236/99

  WAITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  In several cases against the United Kingdom, however, the Court has found that Article 5 § 4 guaranteed prisoners sentenced to life the right to a remedy to determine the lawfulness of their detention once they had served the "tariff" (the retributive and deterrent part of their sentence), as under British law, on expiry of that initial punitive period further detention depended solely on circumstances that were subject to change, such as how dangerous the individual was considered to be, or the risk of his reoffending (see, among other authorities, Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, §§ 87-90, ECHR 2002-IV, and Waite v. the United Kingdom, no. 53236/99, § 56, 10 December 2002).
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  In several cases against the United Kingdom, however, the Court has found that Article 5 § 4 guaranteed prisoners sentenced to life the right to a remedy to determine the lawfulness of their detention once they had served the "tariff" (the retributive and deterrent part of their sentence), as under British law, on expiry of that initial punitive period further detention depended solely on circumstances that were subject to change, such as how dangerous the individual was considered to be, or the risk of his reoffending (see, among other authorities, Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, §§ 87-90, ECHR 2002-IV, and Waite v. the United Kingdom, no. 53236/99, § 56, 10 December 2002).
• EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 40653/98

  IORGOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  An initial application lodged by the applicant led to the finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention because of the severity of the regime and conditions of detention imposed on him in Sofia prison between 1990 and 1998 (Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, 11 March 2004).
• EKMR, 14.12.1988 - 13183/87

  BAMBER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  Imposing a life sentence on an adult offender is not, in itself, prohibited by Article 3 or any other provision of the Convention or incompatible therewith (see, among many other authorities, Bamber v. the United Kingdom, no. 13183/87, Commission decision of 14 December 1988, and Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 73299/01

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 140/10

  Belgien wegen Auslieferung von Ex-Fußballprofi verurteilt

  The same reasoning should be used as in Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 36295/02, 2 September 2010): since the sentences imposed by the US authorities for such acts had all been recent, the persons thus sentenced could not yet have requested a Presidential pardon.

  Until recently the Court had held that the sole possibility of adjustment of a life sentence was sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Article 3. It had thus ruled that the possibility of early release, even where such a decision was only at the discretion of the Head of State (see Kafkaris, cited above, § 103) or the hope of Presidential clemency in the form of either a pardon or a commutation of sentence (see Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, §§ 51 to 60, 2 September 2010) was sufficient to establish such a possibility.

• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 18233/16

  ETUTE c. LUXEMBOURG

  The Court, relying on De Wilde, Ooms and Wersyp (cited above) and several other judgments, including Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 36295/02, 2 September 2010; see paragraph 16 below) and Brown v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 968/04, 26 October 2004; see paragraph 18 below) held that the judicial control required by Article 5 § 4 was incorporated in the applicant's "original" conviction (by which the Court meant the conviction of the applicant by the ICTY Appeals Chamber) and the sentence imposed on him.

  [46] Iorgov c. Bulgarie, n° 36295/02, 2 septembre 2010.

• EGMR, 13.06.2019 - 77633/16

  VIOLA c. ITALIE

  Je note que, dans l'arrêt Iorgov c. Bulgarie (no 2) (no 36295/02, 2 septembre 2010) puis dans l'arrêt Harakchiev et Tolumov, précité, la Cour a exposé la méthodologie applicable pour rechercher si l'existence du droit de grâce permet de considérer une peine comme compatible avec l'exigence de compressibilité.

• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20

  SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 36295/02, §§ 51-60, 2 September 2010) the Court subsequently confirmed that the hope of Presidential clemency in the form of either a pardon or a commutation of sentence was sufficient to establish a prospect of release.
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37871/14

  T.P. v. HUNGARY

  On the contrary, it was reiterated (not necessarily using the same phrasing) in a number of later judgments (see, for example, Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, §§ 58-60, 2 September 2010, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  [ENG]

  As far as life sentences are concerned, the Court has found this to be so in the case of mandatory life sentences which were purely punitive in nature because of the gravity of the offence (see, as the most recent example, Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, §§ 73-77, 2 September 2010).
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  LÓPEZ ELORZA v. SPAIN

  Until recently the Court had held that the mere possibility of adjustment of a life sentence was sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Article 3. It thus ruled that the possibility of early release, even where such a decision was at the discretion of the Head of State (see Kafkaris, cited above, § 103) or the hope of Presidential clemency in the form of either a pardon or a commutation of sentence (see Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, §§ 51-60, 2 September 2010) was sufficient to establish such a possibility.
• EGMR, 21.04.2026 - 28157/18

  F.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 36295/02, §§ 51-60, 2 September 2010) the Court subsequently confirmed that the hope of Presidential clemency in the form of either a pardon or a commutation of sentence was sufficient to establish a prospect of release.
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 22662/13

  MATIOSAITIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA and 7 other applications

  That notwithstanding, the fact that a relatively small number of life prisoners had been granted pardon should not be considered sufficient to prove that the penalty was irreducible de facto (the Government referred to Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, § 57, 2 September 2010).
• EGMR, 26.10.2017 - 34639/07

  ZHIVKO GOSPODINOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court observes in the first place that in its earlier judgment in the case of Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 36295/02, § 60, 2 September 2010), the applicant had been the same person as the ninth applicant in the present case and had brought an identical complaint, namely about the irreducibility of his whole-life sentence and the related absence of all hope that he might be released from prison one day.
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21

  COMPAORE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 22926/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 45358/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 4413/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 34846/08

  DIMITROV ET RIBOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 6670/06

  PANCERS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 70495/10

  LYNCH AND WHELAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 30009/08

  KOSTOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 68476/10

  SCHUCHTER c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 26621/10

  MARICAK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 6017/11

  KRAJISNIK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 19552/05

  TODOROV c. BULGARIE