Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G.S. v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Iran) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  G.S. c. BULGARIE

  Art. 3 MRK
  [FRE]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2020, 783
• NVwZ-RR 2020, 457

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  They were first set out in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, §§ 81-91, Series A no. 161), and were more recently restated in detail in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 66-70, ECHR 2005-I), Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07 and 4 others, §§ 167-79, 10 April 2012), Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, §§ 119-31, 17 January 2012), Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, §§ 116-20, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), as well as in a judgment against Bulgaria (see M.G. v. Bulgaria, no. 59297/12, §§ 74-82, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 36417/16

  X v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  The decisions of the Bulgarian courts are of no assistance when assessing this, as they laboured under the assumption that the only penalty possibly awaiting the applicant in Iran was imprisonment (compare, mutatis mutandis, with López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 109, 12 December 2017, and with X v. Sweden, no. 36417/16, § 59, 9 January 2018).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Briten dürfen Hassprediger an USA ausliefern

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  They were first set out in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, §§ 81-91, Series A no. 161), and were more recently restated in detail in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 66-70, ECHR 2005-I), Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07 and 4 others, §§ 167-79, 10 April 2012), Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, §§ 119-31, 17 January 2012), Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, §§ 116-20, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), as well as in a judgment against Bulgaria (see M.G. v. Bulgaria, no. 59297/12, §§ 74-82, 25 March 2014).

• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  The exhaustion rule also requires that any procedural means capable of preventing the breach of the Convention be used in the domestic proceedings (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  They were first set out in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, §§ 81-91, Series A no. 161), and were more recently restated in detail in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 66-70, ECHR 2005-I), Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07 and 4 others, §§ 167-79, 10 April 2012), Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, §§ 119-31, 17 January 2012), Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, §§ 116-20, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), as well as in a judgment against Bulgaria (see M.G. v. Bulgaria, no. 59297/12, §§ 74-82, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  They were first set out in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, §§ 81-91, Series A no. 161), and were more recently restated in detail in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 66-70, ECHR 2005-I), Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07 and 4 others, §§ 167-79, 10 April 2012), Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, §§ 119-31, 17 January 2012), Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, §§ 116-20, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), as well as in a judgment against Bulgaria (see M.G. v. Bulgaria, no. 59297/12, §§ 74-82, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  The exhaustion rule is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 35, Series A no. 40; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 116, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 1101/04

  Peru, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  There is no evidence that the Bulgarian diplomatic services have already cooperated with the Iranian authorities in relation to such matters (see M.G. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 94 in fine, and contrast Burga Ortiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 1101/04, 16 October 2006).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 2478/15

  Kein Grundrecht auf assistierten Suizid

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  2478/15 and 1787/15, § 90, 23 June 2015).
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 8139/09

  OTHMAN (ABU QATADA) CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  The principles governing the assessment of assurances by the destination State were, for their part, comprehensively set out in Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom (no. 8139/09, §§ 186-89, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2017 - 58088/08

  METODIEV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  LÓPEZ ELORZA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 39093/13

  GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 25393/10

  RAFAA c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.01.2010 - 9742/07

  KING v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  KOSTADINOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 73869/10

  CASTALDO c. ITALIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 30915/23

  ALEKSIEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  (a) In the domestic proceedings, applicants must make reasonable efforts to use any procedural means capable of preventing or remedying, as the case may be, the breach of the Convention, including requests for evidence (see, in particular, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, § 71 in fine, 4 April 2019).
• EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 60342/19

  BUDINOVA AND ISAEV v. BULGARIA

  There is no evidence that the applicants are legally bound to reimburse that sum to the Committee (compare, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk v. Germany (Article 50), 23 October 1984, § 8, Series A no. 85; Metodiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58088/08, § 59, 15 June 2017, and G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, § 110, 4 April 2019).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  17153/11 and 29 others, § 72, 25 March 2014; and G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, § 71 in fine, 4 April 2019).

• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 2 other applications

  It is thus open to question whether the Government were estopped from raising that objection: firstly because they did so belatedly (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 52-53, 15 December 2016; Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 44, 21 January 2016; and G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, §§ 68-70, 4 April 2019), and secondly because it contradicted their earlier submissions on the point.
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 46564/15

  KORPORATIVNA TARGOVSKA BANKA AD v. BULGARIA + 1 other application

  It is hence open to question whether there is estoppel (see, mutatis mutandis, G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, §§ 69-70, 4 April 2019).
• VG Kassel, 02.02.2021 - 3 K 221/17

  Iran: subsidiärer Schutz wegen drohender Strafe von Peitschenhieben

  Das Gericht ist mit dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR, Urteil vom 4. April 2019 - 36538/17 -, juris) der Auffassung, dass die dem Kläger im Iran drohende Strafe von 74 Peitschenhieben eine Art. 3 EMRK verletzende Bestrafung ist.
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 77370/16

  I.I. AND M.S. v. BULGARIA

  It is not necessary to decide whether the Government are estopped from raising that point, which they could have brought up in their initial observations on the admissibility and merits of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, §§ 69-70, 4 April 2019), since their objection is in any event ill-founded.
• EGMR - 36296/24 (anhängig)

  A.S. v. GEORGIA AND AZERBAIJAN

  In the light of the general situation in Azerbaijan and the applicant's personal circumstances, would the applicant face, if extradited, a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Did the national authorities adequately assess his claim concerning the risk of ill-treatment on account of his journalistic activities (see the recapitulation of the relevant general principles in Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia ([GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, §§ 95-116, 29 April 2022); see also G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, §§ 79-80, 4 April 2019, with further references)?.