Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G.B. v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 No separate issue under Art. 13 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.10.2002 - 42346/98
• EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  In accordance with this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. However, the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR 2001-III and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. However, the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR 2001-III and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2001-¥I).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  However, in assessing the effect on the applicant of the conditions of detention, the Court may also have regard to the overall period during which he was detained and to the conditions of detention to which he was subjected, including prior to 7 September 1992 (see Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 134, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  The applicant further stated that his case was even stronger than Soering v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161) where a violation of Article 3 of the Convention was found on account of the effects of the "death row phenomenon".
• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  The Court notes that the prohibition of contacts with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (see, among others, Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2001-¥I).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  All of these factors meant conditions at ADX Florence were distinguishable from G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, 11 March 2004 and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III and, in fact, were much less severe than in Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, ECHR 2006-IX, where the Court had found no violation of Article 3.
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07

  BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The conditions were analogous to, if not worse than, those found to be in violation of Article 3 in G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, 11 March 2004 and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III. For instance, in G.B., the applicant was subjected to a stringent custodial regime for more than eight years, which involved twenty-three hours in his cell where he had to take all his meals; in Peers, despite the conditions of his cell, the applicant had at least been allowed to have his cell door open during the day.
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V; Van der Ven, cited above, § 51; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004; and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004).

 
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  YORDANOV v. BULGARIA

  In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V; Van der Ven, cited above, § 51; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004; and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00

  MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA

  In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V; Van der Ven, cited above, § 51; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004; and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004).
• EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 41153/06

  DYBEKU v. ALBANIA

  In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V; Van der Ven, cited above, § 51; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004; and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004).
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98

  IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA

  In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V; Van der Ven, cited above, § 51; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004; and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 44082/98

  I.I. v. BULGARIA

  In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V, Van der Ven, cited above, § 51, Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004, and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004).