Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 28.05.2013

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00, 45358/04, 55389/00, 61507/00, 44082/98, 4473/02, 41211/98, 391/03, 55712/00, 28674/03, 57830/00, 23810/05, 18382/05, 27887/06, 16391/05, 37449/02, 49438/99, 50765/99, 56856/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,6448
EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00, 45358/04, 55389/00, 61507/00, 44082/98, 4473/02, 41211/98, 391/03, 55712/00, 28674/03, 57830/00, 23810/05, 18382/05, 27887/06, 16391/05, 37449/02, 49438/99, 50765/99, 56856/00 (https://dejure.org/2018,6448)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.03.2018 - 54578/00, 45358/04, 55389/00, 61507/00, 44082/98, 4473/02, 41211/98, 391/03, 55712/00, 28674/03, 57830/00, 23810/05, 18382/05, 27887/06, 16391/05, 37449/02, 49438/99, 50765/99, 56856/00 (https://dejure.org/2018,6448)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. März 2018 - 54578/00, 45358/04, 55389/00, 61507/00, 44082/98, 4473/02, 41211/98, 391/03, 55712/00, 28674/03, 57830/00, 23810/05, 18382/05, 27887/06, 16391/05, 37449/02, 49438/99, 50765/99, 56856/00 (https://dejure.org/2018,6448)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,6448) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ALEXOV CONTRE LA BULGARIE ET 18 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ALEXOV AGAINST BULGARIA AND 18 OTHER CASES

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (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 ... (8)Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 76672/12

    HOALGA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    Eu égard aux circonstances de l'interpellation des requérants, au fait qu'ils ont été conduits à l'intérieur du poste de gendarmerie après avoir été immobilisés et menottés, qu'ils y sont demeurés dans le cadre des mesures préalables à des poursuites pénales pour délit d'outrage, ainsi qu'au fait qu'ils n'ont pas pu prendre contact avec leurs familles se trouvant à l'extérieur du poste, la Cour estime qu'il serait irréaliste de considérer que les requérants étaient libres de quitter le poste à leur gré (voir, mutatis mutandis, I.I. c. Bulgarie, no 44082/98, § 87, 9 juin 2005 ; Salayev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 40900/05, § 42, 9 novembre 2010, et Osypenko précité, § 49).
  • EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 6095/11

    DZHABAROV v. BULGARIA

    Noting that when it comes to compensation for detention, Article 5 § 5 is a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Alexov v. Bulgaria, no. 54578/00, § 139, 22 May 2008), the Court finds that the complaint falls to be examined solely by reference to the former.
  • EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 31206/05

    [FRE]

    Elle rappelle avoir déjà déclaré dans d'autres affaires contre la Bulgarie que, suite au développement de la jurisprudence des tribunaux internes depuis 2003, 1'action en réparation contre l'Etat pouvait en principe être considérée comme un recours effectif dans pareille situation (Hristov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 36794/03, 18 mars 2008 ; Kirilov, précité, §§ 43-48 ; Shishmanov c. Bulgarie, no 37449/02, §§ 58-62, 8 janvier 2009), sous réserve que la personne concernée ne soit plus détenue dans les mêmes conditions (Radkov c. Bulgarie (no 2), no 18382/05, § 59, 10 février 2011 ; Iliev et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 4473/02 et 34138/04, § 56, 10 février 2011).
  • EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 36205/06

    GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 2)

    Compte tenu de ces critères, et à titre d'exemple, la Cour a constaté un dépassement du « bref délai'au sens de l'article 5 § 4 dans les affaires suivantes: Rehbock c. Slovenie, (no 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-XII): durée de vingt-trois jours ; GB c. Suisse (no 27426/95, § 32, 30 novembre 2000) durée de trente-deux jours ; Mamedova c. Russie, (no 7064/05, § 96, 1er juin 2006) durée de trente-six jours ; Lebedev c. Russie, (précité, § 115): durée de vingt-six jours ; Mooren c. Allemagne (no 1364/03, § 73, 13 décembre 2007): durée de deux mois et vingt-deux jours ; Kostadinov c. Bulgarie (no 55712/00, § 88, 7 février 2008) et Fursenko c. Russie (no 26386/02, § 139, 24 avril 2008): durée de vingt-six jours dans les deux affaires.
  • EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 22926/04

    [FRE]

    La Cour rappelle que dans ses arrêts Iliev et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 4473/02 et 34138/04, 10 février 2011 et Radkov c. Bulgarie (no 2), no 18382/05, 10 février 2011 elle a estimé que les requérants ne disposaient pas de recours internes effectifs pour remédier aux mauvaises conditions carcérales dans lesquelles ils étaient toujours détenus.
  • EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 42778/05

    GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 1)

    Compte tenu de ces critères, et à titre d'exemple, la Cour a constaté un dépassement du « bref délai'au sens de l'article 5 § 4 dans les affaires suivantes: Rehbock c. Slovenie, (no 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-XII): durée de vingt-trois jours ; GB c. Suisse (no 27426/95, § 32, 30 novembre 2000) durée de trente-deux jours ; Mamedova c. Russie, (no 7064/05, § 96, 1er juin 2006) durée de trente-six jours ; Lebedev c. Russie, (précité, § 115): durée de vingt-six jours ; Mooren c. Allemagne (no 1364/03, § 73, 13 décembre 2007): durée de deux mois et vingt-deux jours ; Kostadinov c. Bulgarie (no 55712/00, § 88, 7 février 2008) et Fursenko c. Russie (no 26386/02, § 139, 24 avril 2008): durée de vingt-six jours dans les deux affaires.
  • EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 23204/07

    GHAVTADZE c. GEORGIE

    Ajouté à cela le fait que la radiographie du thorax pratiquée en mars 2007 ne révéla aucune pathologie pulmonaire chez le requérant, la Cour estime probable que l'intéressé contracta la tuberculose dans la prison no 5 de Tbilissi (cf., Staïkov c. Bulgarie, no 49438/99, § 81, 12 octobre 2006 ; Yakovenko c. Ukraine, no 15825/06, §§ 28 et 95, 25 octobre 2007 ; Hummatov c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 9852/03 et 13413/04, § 111, 29 novembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 50765/99

    TODOR TODOROV c. BULGARIE

    Dans ces circonstances, la Cour considère que l'intéressé a été informé de manière suffisante et dans un délai compatible avec les exigences de l'article 5 § 2 des raisons de son arrestation (voir, mutatis mutandis, I.I. c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 44082/98, 25 mars 2004).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,10946
EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,10946)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.05.2013 - 27887/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,10946)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Mai 2013 - 27887/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,10946)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,10946) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SABEV v. BULGARIA

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

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (7)Zitiert selbst (20)

  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

    ILIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    4473/02 and 34138/04, §§ 11 and 15, 10 February 2011; and Radkov (no. 2), cited above, § 14).

    On the basis of developments in the Bulgarian courts" case-law since 2003, the Court has accepted that a claim under section 1(1) of the 1988 Act (see paragraphs 61 and 62 above), in as much as it can lead to an award of compensation for poor conditions of detention, is in principle an effective remedy in respect of such conditions, provided that the person concerned has been released or placed in Convention-compliant conditions (see Iliev and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 4473/02 and 34138/04, §§ 46, 50 and 54-56, 10 February 2011, and Radkov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 37 and 53).

  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

    Briten dürfen Hassprediger an USA ausliefern

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    The principles governing the application of that provision in relation to the regime and conditions of detention of life prisoners were recently summarised in the Court's judgment in Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, §§ 200-14, 10 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 41035/98

    KEHAYOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    Restatements of the general principles concerning the examination of conditions of detention under Article 3 of the Convention may be found in the Court's judgments in Orchowski (cited above, §§ 119-22), Norbert Sikorski (cited above, §§ 126-31) and Kehayov v. Bulgaria (no. 41035/98, §§ 62-65, 18 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 7481/06

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    A decision or measure taken by the domestic authorities which is favourable to the applicant is in principle not sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a victim unless those authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded adequate redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, § 18, 20 July 2010).
  • EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

    IORGOV v. BULGARIA (no. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    It should be noted in this connection that in contrast to the situation of Mr Iorgov, whose regime was gradually relaxed by way of an "experiment" in Pleven Prison in 2003-04 - favourably commented upon by the CPT -, initially as regards access to the lavatories and then as regards isolation from other prisoners (see Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, §§ 21-23 and 42, 2 September 2010, and paragraph 71 in fine above), the applicant in the present case remained under the full strictures of the "special regime" throughout the period under consideration.
  • EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 40653/98

    IORGOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    The Court has in particular held that an impoverished regime which isolates a life prisoner for a long time is likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities (see Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 83-84, 11 March 2004), and that such a regime cannot be regarded as warranted unless based on proper risk considerations, and should not be maintained after such risk has subsided (see Babar Ahmad and Others, cited above, §§ 207-11).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 28674/03

    SLAVCHO KOSTOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    The Court already found that (a) a claim under section 1(1) of the 1988 Act cannot be regarded as an effective remedy if the conditions of detention complained of flow directly from the "special regime" applicable to life prisoners; and (b) the claims for damages brought by the applicant failed to provide him adequate redress (see paragraphs 85 and 89-94 above and, mutatis mutandis, Iovchev, cited above, § 146, and Slavcho Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 28674/03, §§ 60-65, 27 November 2008).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 68490/01

    STANKOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    Following this Court's judgment in the case of Stankov v. Bulgaria (no. 68490/01, 12 July 2007), which found that the statutory scheme outlined above had, on the facts of the case, resulted in a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Bulgarian Government laid before Parliament a bill for the amendment of the 1988 Act.
  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17599/05

    NORBERT SIKORSKI c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    The Court had earlier come to a similar conclusion in respect of the effectiveness of purely compensatory remedies in a number of cases against Poland (see Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, § 116, 22 October 2009; Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 109, 22 October 2009; Lominski v. Poland (dec.), no. 33502/09, §§ 68-76, 12 October 2010; and Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, §§ 77-85, 12 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
    The Court had earlier come to a similar conclusion in respect of the effectiveness of purely compensatory remedies in a number of cases against Poland (see Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, § 116, 22 October 2009; Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 109, 22 October 2009; Lominski v. Poland (dec.), no. 33502/09, §§ 68-76, 12 October 2010; and Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, §§ 77-85, 12 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98

    IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 32130/03

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 16391/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 36794/03

    SVETOSLAV HRISTOV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 45358/04

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 3475/03

    TITOVI v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 37449/02

    SHISHMANOV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 18382/05

    RADKOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 222/05

    PISARKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

    Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

    Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 27887/06, 28 May 2013.
  • EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

    HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA

    The use of buckets in the absence of in-cell toilet facilities was, and still is, widespread in prisons in Bulgaria, has been well documented by the CPT (see the report quoted in paragraph 171 above in relation specifically to the unit housing life prisoners in Plovdiv Prison, as well as the report quoted in paragraph 173 above), has been acknowledged as a problem by the Government (see paragraph 172 above), and has been consistently criticised by this Court since 2005 (see Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no. 41035/98, § 71, 18 January 2005; I.I. v. Bulgaria, no. 44082/98, § 75, 9 June 2005; Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, § 134, 2 February 2006; Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 56856/00, § 94, 10 August 2006; Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 129, 10 August 2006; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 140, 28 June 2007; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, § 61, 7 February 2008; Gavazov v. Bulgaria, no. 54659/00, § 108, 6 March 2008; Radkov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 48-49; Shahanov, cited above, § 53; and Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 27887/06, § 99, 28 May 2013).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16

    NIKITIN v. ESTONIA and 5 other applications

    But it seems to me that an issue of effectiveness of the remedy arises where the amount is "derisory" (see Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, § 55, ECHR 2006-X (a contrario)), (wholly) "inadequate" (see Slavcho Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 28674/03, § 64, 27 November 2008), or "unreasonably low" (as claimed by the applicant in the present case - see paragraph 212 of the judgment; see Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 27887/06, §§ 92 and 102, 28 May 2013).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00

    ALEXOV CONTRE LA BULGARIE ET 18 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    27887/06.
  • EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 65540/16

    ATANASOV AND APOSTOLOV v. BULGARIA

    The bringing of the claim is - as was the case previously, when inmates could seek compensation for poor conditions of detention under section 1(1) of the 1988 Act (see Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 27887/06, § 66, 28 May 2013) - subject to a simple court fee, and it is not necessary to deposit court costs in advance.
  • EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 37994/09

    RADEV c. BULGARIE

    As regards toilet facilities in prisons, the Court has consistently criticised the use of buckets in the absence of in-cell toilet facilities (see, among other authorities, Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no. 41035/98, § 71, 18 January 2005; I.I. v. Bulgaria, no. 44082/98, § 75, 9 June 2005; Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, § 134, 2 February 2006; Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 56856/00, § 94, 10 August 2006; Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 129, 10 August 2006; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 140, 28 June 2007; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, § 61, 7 February 2008; Gavazov v. Bulgaria, no. 54659/00, § 108, 6 March 2008; Radkov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 18382/05, §§ 48-49, 10 February 2011; Shahanov v. Bulgaria, no. 16391/05, § 53, 10 January 2012; Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 27887/06, § 99, 28 May 2013; and Harakchiev and Tolumov, cited above, § 211).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 4374/05

    [ENG]

    More specifically as regards toilet facilities in prisons, the Court has consistently criticised the use of buckets in the absence of in-cell toilet facilities (see, among other authorities, Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no. 41035/98, § 71, 18 January 2005; I.I. v. Bulgaria, no. 44082/98, § 75, 9 June 2005; Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, § 134, 2 February 2006; Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 56856/00, § 94, 10 August 2006; Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 129, 10 August 2006; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 140, 28 June 2007; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, § 61, 7 February 2008; Gavazov v. Bulgaria, no. 54659/00, § 108, 6 March 2008; Radkov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 18382/05, §§ 48-49, 10 February 2011; Shahanov v. Bulgaria, no. 16391/05, § 53, 10 January 2012; Sabev v. Bulgaria, no. 27887/06, § 99, 28 May 2013; and Harakchiev and Tolumov, cited above, § 211).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht