Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13+3 Remainder inadmissible Damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI and Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 130, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  Consequently, this represented a remedy which enabled the authorities of the respondent State to redress the breach of the Convention alleged by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Brusco v. Italy, no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Giacometti and others v. Italy, no. 34939/97, ECHR 2001-XII).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 101, ECHR 2002-VI).

 
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  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 Kehayov, § 65 and Iovchev, § 128, both cited above; and, mutatis mutandis, Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 51, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI and Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 130, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the "CCP") and the Bulgarian courts' practice before 1 January 2000 are summarised in the Court's judgments in several similar cases (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, §§ 25-36, ECHR 1999-II; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 55-59, 26 July 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 79-88, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  The Court finds this situation to be different from instances where the domestic courts ordered the continued detention of a detainee by citing and relying on documents and information which were contained in the investigation or court file to which the said detainee was not given access to (see, for example, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29; Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 41, 13 February 2001; Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 53, ECHR 2001-I; and Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 48, ECHR 2001-I), or where he was denied the opportunity to acquaint himself with pleadings or submissions of the prosecuting authorities and to challenge them (see, for example, Nikolova, cited above, § 63; Ilijkov, cited above, § 104; Kuibishev v. Bulgaria, no. 39271/98, § 76, 30 September 2004; and Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 18, § 33 and Remli v. France, judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 571, § 33).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  The Court has frequently stated in its case-law that Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52; Voyager Limited v. Turkey (dec.), no. 35045/97, 4 September 2001; and Ivison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39030/97, 16 April 2002).

• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 32130/03

  PETYO PETKOV c. BULGARIE

  Il s'ensuit que ceux-ci étaient défendables au regard de l'article 13 (Andreï Gueorguiev c. Bulgarie, no 61507/00, § 67, 26 juillet 2007) et que cette disposition de la Convention trouve à s'appliquer dans le cas d'espèce.
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 70462/13

  GRECO c. ITALIE

  Enfin, la Cour rappelle que l'article 5 § 5 constitue une lex specialis par rapport aux exigences plus générales de l'article 13 (Tsirlis et Kouloumpas c. Grèce, 29 mai 1997, § 73, Recueil 1997-III, et Andrei Georgiev c. Bulgarie, no 61507/00, § 70, 26 juillet 2007).
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 3794/08

  UMLAUFOVÁ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Cependant, cette règle ne va pas sans exceptions, qui peuvent être justifiées par les circonstances particulières de chaque cas d'espèce (Brusco c. Italie (déc.) no 69789/01, CEDH 2001-IX ; Nogolica c. Croatie (déc.), no 77784/01, CEDH 2002-VIII ; Andreï Gueorguiev c. Bulgarie, no 61507/00, § 77, 26 juillet 2007 ; Eskilsson c. Suède (déc.), no 14628/08, 24 janvier 2012).

 
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 29878/09

  KARIN ANDERSSON AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Such an obligation may exceptionally exist, depending on the particular circumstances of each case (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 78, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 60437/08

  ERIKSSON v. SWEDEN

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 78, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 32060/05

  PARASCINETI c. ROUMANIE

  A cet égard, il invoque l'arrêt Andreï Gueorguiev c. Bulgarie (no 61507/00, §§ 57-62, 26 juillet 2007) dans lequel la Cour est parvenue à un constat d'absence de violation de l'article 3 concernant la privation de liberté du requérant âgé de 27 ans et en bonne santé pendant 23 jours dans un lieu de détention situé au dessous du niveau de la rue et dont la cellule ne bénéficiait d'éclairage naturel et d'installations sanitaires, dans laquelle il devait partager son lit doté de couvertures infestées de poux.
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 34485/09

  CIUCA c. ROUMANIE

  Enfin, citant l'arrêt Andreï Gueorguiev c. Bulgarie, (no 61507/00, §§ 57-62, 26 juillet 2007), il invite la Cour à tenir compte du jeune âge du requérant et de sa courte incarcération dans la prison de Bucarest-Jilava.
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  KANDZHOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court does not need to resolve the question whether a claim for compensation may be considered as an effective remedy in respect of a deprivation of liberty carried out in breach of Article 5 of the Convention (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), which imply that it may be; Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, which says that it is, after the impugned detention has ended; and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; and Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007, which say that it is not, even after the individual concerned has been released).
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 54578/00

  ALEXOV v. BULGARIA

  Likewise and in spite of the finding that there was no violation in respect of the applicant's detention at Pazardzhik Prison (see paragraph 109 above), an "arguable claim" also arises in respect of it for the purpose of Article 13 of the Convention (see Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 67, 26 July 2007 and, mutatis mutandis, Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 157-60, ECHR 2006).
• EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10

  RUMINSKI v. SWEDEN

  Having said that, the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX, and Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 78, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 13364/05

  KECHEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 64930/09

  CIUPERCESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

  MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 21.06.2012 - 36124/06

  OLSBY v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  GAVRIL YOSIFOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11

  ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7396/10

  HENRIKSSON v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10

  SHIBENDRA DEV v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 64372/11

  NAZARI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 14628/08

  ESKILSSON v. SWEDEN