Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (30)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 2747/02

  VACHKOVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  28975/04 and 33406/04, §§ 49-58, 23 February 2010; Vachkovi v. Bulgaria, no. 2747/02, §§ 72-77, 8 July 2010; Vlaevi v. Bulgaria, nos.

  Interviewing such officers is clearly required in cases similar to Vachkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 2747/02, 8 July 2010), where the Court found that there had been a breach of Article 2 of the Convention precisely because of the failure to interview the officers of the anti-terrorist squad.

• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  VASIL SASHOV PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  In a more recent case, Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 63106/00, §§ 21 and 60-61, 10 June 2010), the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed a similar claim, holding that the actions of the police had been proportionate and lawful, even though the individual against whom they had used firearms had not been suspected of committing a violent offence or of being dangerous.

  Unlike previous cases against Bulgaria in which the Court found that the rules governing the use of force for the arrest of unarmed and non-dangerous individuals were deficient in that they allowed the police to use firearms against them (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 99-102, ECHR 2005-VII; Tzekov, cited above, §§ 53-56; Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, §§ 43-47, 10 June 2010; and Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, §§ 56-60, 7 October 2010), the present case concerns an armed and dangerous individual who was using firearms against the police.

• EGMR, 05.01.2000 - 33202/96

  Eingriff in ein Eigentumsrecht durch staatliche Ausübung eines Vorkaufsrechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  Although this lack of proof of domestic-law title does not conclusively establish that Mr Todorov had no possession within the autonomous meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I; Zwierzynski v. Poland, no. 34049/96, § 63, ECHR 2001-VI; Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 75, ECHR 2007-V (extracts); Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 68, ECHR 2010-...; and Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, § 71, 29 March 2010), the applicants did not provide any information - such as the year in which the house had been built, details concerning Mr Todorov's usage of the house, or anything showing that the authorities had been aware of the existence of the house and had tolerated it or had treated Mr Todorov as its owner - that would allow the Court to conclude that Mr Todorov had a proprietary interest in the peaceful enjoyment of the house that was sufficiently established and weighty to amount to a possession (contrast Zwierzynski, cited above, §§ 64-65; Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 127-29, ECHR 2004-XII; Osman v. Bulgaria, no. 43233/98, §§ 96-97, 16 February 2006, and Hamer, § 76; Depalle, § 65; and Brosset-Triboulet and Others, § 68, all cited above).

• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 43449/02

  MILEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  Costs incurred to prevent or obtain redress for a violation of the Convention through the domestic legal order are recoverable under that provision (see, as a recent authority, Mileva and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43449/02 and 21475/04, § 123, 25 November 2010).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 57785/00

  ZLINSAT, SPOL. S R.O. v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  It is incumbent on a Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy that they rely on is effective and available in theory and in practice (see, among many other authorities, Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. v. Bulgaria, no. 57785/00, § 56, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 36217/97

  MENTESE AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  According to the Court's established case-law, 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, among many other authorities, Mentese and Others v. Turkey, no. 36217/97, § 88, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  Concerning the Government's objection of lack of victim status, the Court observes that all that Article 34 requires is that an applicant should claim to have been affected by an act, omission or situation said to be in breach of the Convention (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  Since McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (27 September 1995, Series A no. 324) the Court has had to deal with a number of cases in which the police had used force, typically firearms, against armed or dangerous individuals (see, among other authorities, Andronicou and Constantinou, cited above, §§ 181-86 and 191-93; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, §§ 79-83, 14 December 2000; Brady v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 55151/00, 3 April 2001; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2004-XI; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 138-52, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Perk and Others v. Turkey, no. 50739/99, §§ 58-73, 28 March 2006; Halit Çelebi v. Turkey, no. 54182/00, §§ 49-52, 2 May 2006; Yüksel ErdoÄŸan and Others v. Turkey, no. 57049/00, §§ 91-101, 15 February 2007; Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, §§ 96-109, 13 March 2007; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 280-82 and 288-89, ECHR 2007-II; Bakan v. Turkey, no. 50939/99, §§ 52-56, 12 June 2007; Ekrem v. Turkey, no. 75632/01, §§ 56-61, 12 June 2007; Usta and Others v. Turkey, no. 57084/00, §§ 51-61, 21 February 2008; Kasa v. Turkey, no. 45902/99, §§ 82-89, 20 May 2008; Gülen v. Turkey, no. 28226/02, §§ 33-39, 14 October 2008; Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, §§ 94-111, 17 December 2009; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos.
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  Since McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (27 September 1995, Series A no. 324) the Court has had to deal with a number of cases in which the police had used force, typically firearms, against armed or dangerous individuals (see, among other authorities, Andronicou and Constantinou, cited above, §§ 181-86 and 191-93; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, §§ 79-83, 14 December 2000; Brady v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 55151/00, 3 April 2001; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2004-XI; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 138-52, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Perk and Others v. Turkey, no. 50739/99, §§ 58-73, 28 March 2006; Halit Çelebi v. Turkey, no. 54182/00, §§ 49-52, 2 May 2006; Yüksel ErdoÄŸan and Others v. Turkey, no. 57049/00, §§ 91-101, 15 February 2007; Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, §§ 96-109, 13 March 2007; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 280-82 and 288-89, ECHR 2007-II; Bakan v. Turkey, no. 50939/99, §§ 52-56, 12 June 2007; Ekrem v. Turkey, no. 75632/01, §§ 56-61, 12 June 2007; Usta and Others v. Turkey, no. 57084/00, §§ 51-61, 21 February 2008; Kasa v. Turkey, no. 45902/99, §§ 82-89, 20 May 2008; Gülen v. Turkey, no. 28226/02, §§ 33-39, 14 October 2008; Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, §§ 94-111, 17 December 2009; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos.
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  It firstly observes that a claim for damages would not in itself be capable of remedying the alleged breach of the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 (see, among other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 121 and 156, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 17170/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 63758/00

  ANIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 5108/02

  KHATSIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2006 - 45500/99

  TZEKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 50739/99

  PERK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 57049/00

  YÜKSEL ERDOGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 45902/99

  KASA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 69180/01

  KARANDJA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 28226/02

  GÜLEN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 14397/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 55151/00

  BRADY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 26562/07

  Geiseldrama von Beslan - Russland verurteilt

  While errors of judgment or mistaken assessments, unfortunate in retrospect, will not in themselves entail responsibility under Article 2, such use of explosive and indiscriminate weapons, with the attendant risk for human life, cannot be regarded as absolutely necessary in the circumstances (see, among other authorities, Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 78, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 2 other applications

  In January 2014 Mr P.P. wrote to the Gorna Oryahovitsa district prosecutor's office, complaining about his neighbours and of harassment by the police, and threatening that if that conduct did not stop, events would unfold worse than those in 2003, when a man had barricaded himself inside his house, shot at police officers who had tried to arrest him, and been killed following a siege by the police and the anti-terrorist squad (for more details about that police operation, see Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, §§ 8-29, 6 November 2012).

  Since its first case under Article 2, McCann and Others (cited above), the Court has applied that standard in many cases in which the police or the security forces had used force, typically firearms, against armed or dangerous individuals (see Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 69, 6 November 2012, with numerous further references, and, more recently, Camekan v. Turkey, no. 54241/08, §§ 45-50, 28 January 2014, and Cangöz and Others v. Turkey, no. 7469/06, §§ 105-39, 26 April 2016).

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  It may also be engaged where those agents, when conducting an operation, fail to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods with a view to avoiding or at least minimising incidental loss of life (see Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, §§ 77-79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Saoud v. France, no. 9375/02, §§ 88-90, 9 October 2007; and Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 72, 6 November 2012).

  The Court notes, however, that this is not the first case against Bulgaria in which it finds that the procedural response to a death at the hands of the police has failed to meet the Convention standards (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, §§ 77-84, ECHR 2000-VI; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 141-46, ECHR 2002-IV; Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, no. 46317/99, §§ 108-16, 23 February 2006; Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, §§ 64-68, 7 October 2010; Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, §§ 83-85, 6 November 2012; and Filipovi, cited above, §§ 64-73) It should be emphasised that appropriate procedures for ensuring the accountability of agents of the State are indispensable in maintaining public confidence and meeting the legitimate concerns that might arise from the use of force.

• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 272/05

  VLAEVI AND 5 OTHER CASES AGAINST BULGARIA

  30086/05.
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  KOSTADINOV c. BULGARIE

  The questions whether the applicant has in fact been so affected and whether he or she is actually the victim of a breach go to the merits of the case (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 33 and 38, Series A no. 28; Doğan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 93, ECHR 2004-VI (extracts); Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 106-07, ECHR 2011-IV; and Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 61, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 11157/11

  YORDANOVI c. BULGARIE

  Les questions de savoir si le requérant a été réellement lésé et s'il est effectivement victime d'une violation de la Convention relèvent du fond de l'affaire (Dimov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 30086/05, § 61, 6 novembre 2012, et Boris Kostadinov c. Bulgarie, no 61701/11, § 45, 21 janvier 2016).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  OTEGI MONDRAGON AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

  Thus, the questions whether the applicants have in fact been so affected and whether they are actually the victims of a breach go to the merits of the case (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 33 and 38, Series A no. 28; Doğan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 93, ECHR 2004-VI (extracts); Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 106-07, ECHR 2011-IV; and Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 61, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 36613/08

  [ENG]

  Having regard to the reasons for which it found a breach of the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court declares the complaint under Article 13 admissible but considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article 13 (see, for example, Karandja, cited above, § 72 and Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 89, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 21302/13

  TONKEVI v. BULGARIA

  The Court must also examine whether the police operation of 30 April-1 May 2011 was planned and carried out in such a way as to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, the use of lethal force (see paragraph 32 above; see also Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 75, 6 November 2012).