Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,32171
EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96 (https://dejure.org/2001,32171)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.07.2001 - 33977/96 (https://dejure.org/2001,32171)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juli 2001 - 33977/96 (https://dejure.org/2001,32171)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,32171) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (40)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94

    MUSIAL c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    Having regard to its case-law (see the Lukanov v. Bulgaria judgment of 10 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, § 56; the Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria judgment of 28 October 1998; Reports 1998-VIII, §§ 176-178; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II; Jecius v. Lithuania, loc. cit., § 109; Punzelt v. the Czech Republic, no. 31315/96, 25 April 2000, unreported; Grauslys v. Lithuania, loc. cit.; Musial v. Poland, 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II; Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/98, § 67, ECHR 2000-X), and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the global sum of BGN 6, 000 under the head of non-pecuniary damage in respect of the violations of the Convention found in the present case.
  • EGMR, 25.04.2000 - 31315/96

    PUNZELT v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    Having regard to its case-law (see the Lukanov v. Bulgaria judgment of 10 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, § 56; the Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria judgment of 28 October 1998; Reports 1998-VIII, §§ 176-178; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II; Jecius v. Lithuania, loc. cit., § 109; Punzelt v. the Czech Republic, no. 31315/96, 25 April 2000, unreported; Grauslys v. Lithuania, loc. cit.; Musial v. Poland, 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II; Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/98, § 67, ECHR 2000-X), and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the global sum of BGN 6, 000 under the head of non-pecuniary damage in respect of the violations of the Convention found in the present case.
  • EGMR, 29.06.2000 - 35892/97

    SABEUR BEN ALI v. MALTA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    Having regard to its case-law (see the Lukanov v. Bulgaria judgment of 10 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, § 56; the Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria judgment of 28 October 1998; Reports 1998-VIII, §§ 176-178; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 79, ECHR 1999-II; Jecius v. Lithuania, loc. cit., § 109; Punzelt v. the Czech Republic, no. 31315/96, 25 April 2000, unreported; Grauslys v. Lithuania, loc. cit.; Musial v. Poland, 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II; Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/98, § 67, ECHR 2000-X), and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the global sum of BGN 6, 000 under the head of non-pecuniary damage in respect of the violations of the Convention found in the present case.
     
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    However, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention on remand (see, as a recent authority, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 94, ECHR 2000-IX).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova, cited above, § 63; and Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, unreported).
  • EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

    SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    There exist, as illustrated by the Court's judgments in a number of cases under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, a variety of possible procedural solutions whereby the requirement of objective impartiality would not be infringed in a similar situation (see the following judgments: Sainte-Marie v. France of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-A; Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B; Fey v. Austria of 24 February 1993 Series A no. 255-A; Nortier v. the Netherlands of 24 August 1993 Series A no. 267; and Padovani v. Italy of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B).
  • EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

    CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and the above cited Jecius v. Lithuania, §§ 93 and 94).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and the above cited Jecius v. Lithuania, §§ 93 and 94).
  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
    Only special circumstances may in a given case be such as to warrant a different conclusion (see the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

    KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 13924/88

    NORTIER c. PAYS-BAS

  • EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

    FEY v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

    SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

    PADOVANI v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12981/87

    SAINTE-MARIE c. FRANCE

     
  • EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

    Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

    This practice has already been criticised by the Court in a number of judgments (see Zherebin, cited above, § 60; Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, § 49, 19 December 2013; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 84-85, 26 July 2001; and Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005).
  • EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

    NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

    Dans une autre affaire, la Commission a estimé que les allégations d'un requérant selon lesquelles il avait été soumis à un mauvais traitement alors qu'il était alimenté de force lors de sa grève de la faim étaient dénuées de fondement, puisque le requérant n'avait pas prouvé que la manière dont il avait été nourri de force équivalait à un acte de torture, à une peine ou un traitement inhumains ou dégradants (Ilijkov c. Bulgarie, no 33977/96, décision de la Commission du 20 octobre 1997, non publiée).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

    HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    La Cour remarque qu'il n'existe pas de jurisprudence des organes de la Convention traitant directement de la charge de la preuve dans le cadre des procédures relevant de l'article 5 § 4, même si elle a précédemment tenu compte du fait qu'une lourde charge de la preuve pesait sur des requérants dont la sortie de détention provisoire était subordonnée à la démonstration par eux qu'ils ne présentaient pas le moindre risque de se soustraire à la justice pour parvenir à la conclusion que les procédures visant à contrôler la légalité de leur détention étaient incompatibles avec l'article 5 § 4 (Nikolova c. Bulgarie [GC], no 31195/96, § 59, CEDH 1999-II, et Ilijkov c. Bulgarie, no 33977/96, § 99, 26 juillet 2001).
  • EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

    KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA

    Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005, and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 84-85, 26 July 2001).

    Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier, cited above, § 51; see also Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001; and Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 135, 23 October 2012).

  • EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 4633/15

    G.B. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    While Article 5 § 4 does not impose an obligation on a court examining an objection against detention to address every argument contained in the detainee's submissions, its guarantees would be deprived of their substance if the court treated as irrelevant, or disregarded, concrete facts invoked by the detainee and capable of putting into doubt the existence of the conditions essential for the "lawfulness", in the sense of the Convention, of the deprivation of liberty (see, mutatis mutandis, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 94, 26 July 2001).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 30044/10

    DIMO DIMOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

    Toutefois, le juge ne peut considérer comme dénués de pertinence, ou omettre de prendre en compte, des faits concrets invoqués par le détenu et susceptibles de jeter un doute sur l'existence des conditions indispensables à la « légalité ", au sens de la Convention, de la privation de liberté (Ilijkov c. Bulgarie, no 33977/96, § 94, 26 juillet 2001).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.08.2018 - C-310/18

    Milev

    Der EGMR hat in Rn. 84 seines Urteils vom 26. Juli 2001, 11ijkov/Bulgarien (CE:ECHR:2001:0726JUD003397796), festgestellt, dass eine Inhaftierung nur gerechtfertigt sein kann, wenn konkrete Hinweise dafür vorliegen, dass ein im öffentlichen Interesse liegendes tatsächliches Erfordernis - unbeschadet der Unschuldsvermutung - gegenüber der Achtung der individuellen Freiheit überwiegt.
  • EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 77845/01

    DERECI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 25324/02

    TACIROGLU v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 15911/08

    GEISTERFER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 46262/99

    SEVGIN AND INCE v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 40159/98

    TEMEL ET TASKIN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

    BOCHEV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 47043/99

    MEHMET YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 5701/02

    KARAGÖZ v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 21179/02

    SABRI TAS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 42296/09

    KOVROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29985/05

    KISLITSA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 29287/02

    AYHAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02

    TAMAMBOGA AND GÜL v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 8610/02

    ÖZDEN BILGIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 17765/02

    DURSUN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 57963/00

    DUYUM v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 13017/02

    PAKKAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 49048/99

    HUSEYIN ESEN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99

    GÖKÇE AND DEMIREL v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 58398/00

    HASAN CEYLAN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

    MIGON v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 20723/02

    OSVATH v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 17.06.2004 - 70068/01

    FALLETTA contre l'ITALIE

  • EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 60851/00

    PANTANO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 30506/04

    ENCHO PETKOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 61908/00

    MEHMET GÜNES v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

    SELÇUK v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 22.09.2005 - 16779/02

    KALAY v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 73038/01

    ALTIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 49045/99

    GUTZANOV c. BULGARIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht