Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 4473/02
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02, 34138/04

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  In these circumstances, the Court concludes that there has been an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their correspondence (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 33, Series A no. 233; and Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 39, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98

  IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  However, referring to the Court's judgment in the case of Iovchev v. Bulgaria (no. 41211/98, 2 February 2006), he considered that the domestic courts' requirement of separate proof for the sustained non-pecuniary damage, regardless of the fact that they had found the living conditions in the prison to have been degrading, had deprived this remedy of the effectiveness it may have had in principle.
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02

  PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  In these circumstances, the Court concludes that there has been an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their correspondence (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 33, Series A no. 233; and Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 39, 22 May 2008).

• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 15035/03

  KONSTANTIN POPOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  However, the Court does not find it necessary to determine whether the interference was "in accordance with the law" as it considers that it was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention in other respects (see Petrov, cited above, § 41; Konstantin Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 15035/03, § 16, 25 June 2009; and Radkov v. Bulgaria, no. 27795/03, § 19, 22 April 2010).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  Bearing in mind that the domestic courts assessed all relevant issues concerning the conditions of the first applicant's detention, such as their duration and severity as well as their cumulative effects on him (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II), the Court is satisfied that the domestic courts did acknowledge the violation.
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  It held that since such claims could result only in awards of compensation and could not lead to an improvement of the status quo, they were not a remedy capable of providing adequate redress (see Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, §§ 77 and 82, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, §§ 108 and 109, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, § 116, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17599/05

  NORBERT SIKORSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  It held that since such claims could result only in awards of compensation and could not lead to an improvement of the status quo, they were not a remedy capable of providing adequate redress (see Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, §§ 77 and 82, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, §§ 108 and 109, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, § 116, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  It fully confirmed that position in Latak v. Poland ((dec.), no. 52070/08, §§ 77-85, 12 October 2010) and Lominski v. Poland (dec.), §§ 68-76, no. 33502/09, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  As to the amount of the non-pecuniary damages awarded, the Court reiterates that compensation which is lower than that awarded by the Court may nevertheless be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts is consonant with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and is speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 189 and 206, ECHR 2006-V, and Dubjakova v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004).
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  It fully confirmed that position in Latak v. Poland ((dec.), no. 52070/08, §§ 77-85, 12 October 2010) and Lominski v. Poland (dec.), §§ 68-76, no. 33502/09, 12 October 2010).
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 7481/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 28674/03

  SLAVCHO KOSTOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 37449/02

  SHISHMANOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 3475/03

  TITOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 36275/02

  STOYAN DIMITROV c. BULGARIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  4473/02 and 34138/04, § 15, 10 February 2011; Radkov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 18382/05, §§ 17 and 21, 10 February 2011; and Shahanov, cited above, §§ 9-11 and 13-14).

  4473/02 and 34138/04, 10 February 2011.

• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06

  [ENG]

  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, 05.10.2017 - 60429/12

  ÄEURBELE v. LATVIA

  The Court has explained that remedies for conditions of detention which are of a purely compensatory nature may be regarded as effective only in respect of applicants who have been either released or placed in conditions which meet Convention standards (see Iliev and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 4473/02 and 34138/04, § 55, 10 February 2011, and the case-law cited therein).

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 16391/05

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic law concerning enforcement of sentences is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Iliev and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 4473/02 and 34138/04, §§ 23-24, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 15018/11

  HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA

  4473/02 and 34138/04, 10 February 2011; and Radkov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 18382/05, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 10302/05

  DIMITAR VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  4473/02 and 34138/04, §§ 25-31, 10 February 2011.
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 6113/08

  VULDZHEV v. BULGARIA

  4473/02 and 34138/04, §§ 25-31, 10 February 2011.