Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2007,55002
EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,55002)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.07.2007 - 61507/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,55002)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juli 2007 - 61507/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,55002)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,55002) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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)




Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (35)  

  • EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

    MURSIC c. CROATIE

    The examples of cases in which the scarce allocation of personal space did not give rise to a violation of Article 3 include: Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 57-62, 26 July 2007; Alexov v. Bulgaria, no. 54578/00, §§ 107-108, 22 May 2008; and Dolenec, cited above, §§ 133-136.
  • EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

    GAVRIL YOSIFOV v. BULGARIA

    However, in a number of other cases the Court has accepted that, if the impugned detention has come to an end, an action for damages, which is capable of leading to a declaration that this detention was unlawful or in breach of Article 5 § 1 and to a consequent award of compensation, may be an effective remedy in respect of complaints under this provision (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; Kokavecz, cited above; Anderson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 44958/98, 5 October 1999; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; Kolevi v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 1108/02, 4 December 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).
  • 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, 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, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10

    MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN

    Furthermore, the Court reiterates 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, 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, 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, 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, 21.10.2014 - 7362/10

    SHIBENDRA DEV v. SWEDEN

    However, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by 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, §§ 78-79, 26 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

    TERSHIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

    Although the examination on the merits resulted in the finding that the extradition would not amount to a violation of Article 3, the applicant's complaint was nevertheless "arguable" for the purpose of Article 13 of the Convention (compare, for example, Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 67, 26 July 2007, and Mohammed v. Austria, no. 2283/12, §§ 85 and 111, 6 June 2013).
  • EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56688/12

    CHANKAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 22018/10

    CASUNEANU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 8927/02

    SHAROMOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.03.2008 - 54659/00

    GAVAZOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 7396/10

    HENRIKSSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 61183/08

    Y v. LATVIA

  • EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 29878/09

    KARIN ANDERSSON AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 41038/07

    YEMELIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 70462/13

    GRECO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 3794/08

    UMLAUFOVÁ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  • EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 34485/09

    CIUCA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 16147/08

    BOUGLAME c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00

    ALEXOV CONTRE LA BULGARIE ET 18 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 238/06

    IBRAHIM ERGUN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 64930/09

    CIUPERCESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)

  • EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

    SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 54578/00

    ALEXOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 34473/05

    TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 13364/05

    KECHEV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41140/05

    IVANOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2012 - 36124/06

    OLSBY v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 14628/08

    ESKILSSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 1108/02

    KOLEVI v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 9542/11

    ISAKSSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 64372/11

    NAZARI v. DENMARK

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht