Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LENEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07
• EGMR, 25.09.2019 - 41452/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (42)

• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  Having regard to its established case-law in the matter (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 41, Series A no. 28; Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 64, Series A no. 82; Weber and Saravia v. Germany, (dec.), no. 54934/00, §§ 77-79, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, cited above, § 69; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 57, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 34, 10 February 2009), the Court accepts that the mere existence of legislation allowing secret surveillance amounted to an interference with the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

  By contrast, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of this case, the finding of a breach of Article 8 and the related finding of a breach of Article 13 constitute sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant on that account (see, as a recent authority, Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 77, 1 July 2008).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  The Court has thus held that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 50, 19 May 2004; and Vladimir Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61275/00, § 36, 16 October 2008).

  It must therefore be regarded as torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Article 1 § 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, quoted in Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 97, ECHR 1999-V, as well as Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006-III; Ölmez v. Turkey, no. 39464/98, § 60, 20 February 2007; Erdal Aslan v. Turkey, nos.

• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  Assuming that the remedy in question was not effective, he introduced his complaint in relation to his detention more than six months after his release (see, mutatis mutandis, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 20, ECHR 2002-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  The complaint in respect of that statement is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Zollmann v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 50, 13 July 2006; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 109, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  Moreover, in De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium ((Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 16, Series A no. 14, cited in Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 172, ECHR 2002-IV), it held that Article 41 (former Article 50) of the Convention does not require applicants to exhaust domestic remedies a second time before submitting their just satisfaction claims, and that the wording of that provision - where it refers to the possibility of reparation under domestic law - lays down a rule going to the merits of the just satisfaction issue.
• EKMR, 08.07.1974 - 5575/72

  X. c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  According to the Court's and the former Commission's settled case-law, a person may not claim to be a victim of a breach of his or her right to a fair trial that allegedly took place in the course of proceedings in which he or she was acquitted or which were discontinued (see, among other authorities, X v. Austria, no. 5575/72, Commission decision of 8 July 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 1, p. 44; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8083/77, Commission decision of 13 March 1980, DR 19, p. 223; EÄŸinlioÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 31312/96, Commission decision of 21 October 1998, unreported; Correia de Matos v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48188/99, 15 November 2001, ECHR 2001-XII; Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 54178/00, 4 September 2003; I.I. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44082/98, 25 March 2004; Oleksy v. Poland (dec.), no. 1379/06, 16 June 2009; G.L. v. Poland (dec.), no. 36714/09, 16 November 2010).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  LIIVIK v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 50, 13 July 2006; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX; and Liivik v. Estonia, no. 12157/05, § 109, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  For instance, the distribution of the burden of proof in the proceedings before the Court is intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 36714/09

  G.L. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  According to the Court's and the former Commission's settled case-law, a person may not claim to be a victim of a breach of his or her right to a fair trial that allegedly took place in the course of proceedings in which he or she was acquitted or which were discontinued (see, among other authorities, X v. Austria, no. 5575/72, Commission decision of 8 July 1975, Decisions and Reports (DR) 1, p. 44; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8083/77, Commission decision of 13 March 1980, DR 19, p. 223; EÄŸinlioÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 31312/96, Commission decision of 21 October 1998, unreported; Correia de Matos v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48188/99, 15 November 2001, ECHR 2001-XII; Osmanov and Yuseinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 54178/00, 4 September 2003; I.I. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44082/98, 25 March 2004; Oleksy v. Poland (dec.), no. 1379/06, 16 June 2009; G.L. v. Poland (dec.), no. 36714/09, 16 November 2010).
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08

  GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 1379/06

  JOZEF OLEKSY v. POLAND
• EKMR, 13.03.1980 - 8083/77

  X. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 1483/02

  PUIG PANELLA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 61275/00

  VLADIMIR GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 25060/02

  ERDAL ASLAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02

  IORDACHI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 71525/01

  DUMITRU POPESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04

  MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 58438/00

  MARTINEZ SALA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31805/06

  RIZVANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7067/06

  ERISEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 34725/08

  SAVIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE