Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADKOV AND SABEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RADKOV v. BULGARIA and one other application

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07, 36069/09
• EGMR, 06.09.2017 - 18938/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07

  The purpose of this rule 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, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07

  Where, as in the present case, the Court has found a breach of Article 3, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be part of the range of available remedies (see, among other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 217-18, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07

  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 regards the consequences, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 (see Raninen, cited above, § 55, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 68, ECHR 2001-III).

 
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07

  This provision does not refer to security arrangements in courtrooms (see paragraph 15 above) and in a number of earlier judgments the Court has held that it is not applicable to circumstances which are not expressly listed therein (see, for example, Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 95, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Barborski v. Bulgaria, no. 12811/07, § 33, 26 March 2013; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, § 28, 20 January 2011; and Bochev v. Bulgaria, no. 73481/01, § 77, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04

  ASHOT HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07

  Being publicly visible may also be a relevant factor in assessing whether a form of treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, but the Court does not consider that the absence of this public aspect will necessarily prevent a particular form of treatment from falling into that category; the application of measures of restraint to an applicant in a non-public setting may still give rise to a violation of Article 3 in a situation where no serious risks to security could be shown to exist (see Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, § 125, 15 June 2010).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 5002/05

  STOLERIU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07

  In any case, the Court attaches particular importance to the circumstances of each case and examines whether the use of restraints was necessary (see Gorodnichev v. Russia, no. 52058/99, § 102, 24 May 2007, and Stoleriu v. Romania, no. 5002/05, § 74, 16 July 2013).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18938/07

  This provision does not refer to security arrangements in courtrooms (see paragraph 15 above) and in a number of earlier judgments the Court has held that it is not applicable to circumstances which are not expressly listed therein (see, for example, Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 95, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Barborski v. Bulgaria, no. 12811/07, § 33, 26 March 2013; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, § 28, 20 January 2011; and Bochev v. Bulgaria, no. 73481/01, § 77, 13 November 2008).