Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
Violations of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of criminal proceedings) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 (lack of effective remedies against conditions in detention) Not necessary to examine remainder under Arts. 6 and 13 Non-pecuniary damage - ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
- EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
Wird zitiert von ... (52) Zitiert selbst (15)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
What was at stake for the applicant has also to be taken into account (see Portington v. Greece, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2630, § 21; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).It has deemed treatment to be "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
Recalling that a remedy's effectiveness is also gauged by reference to the amount of time it consumes (see Selmouni v. France, no. 25803/94, §§ 78-79, ECHR 1999-V; and Kirilova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98
Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II; and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 102). - EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97
POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, as recent authorities, Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-II; and Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 130, ECHR 2003-V). - EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98
BELCHEV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
In this connection the Court recalls that "[w]here the needs of the investigation are invoked in... a general and abstract fashion they do not suffice to justify the continuation of detention" (see Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, p. 16, § 44; and Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 79, 8 April 2004). - EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87
CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
In this connection the Court recalls that "[w]here the needs of the investigation are invoked in... a general and abstract fashion they do not suffice to justify the continuation of detention" (see Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, p. 16, § 44; and Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 79, 8 April 2004). - EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 41035/98
KEHAYOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
The Court also observes that, since the applicant was detained on the premises of the Plovdiv Regional Investigation Service between 25 October 1996 and 6 May 1997, the findings of the CPT in its 1995 and 1999 reports (see paragraphs 83-90 above) provide a reliable basis for the assessment of the conditions in which he was imprisoned (see Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no. 41035/98, § 66, 18 January 2005). - EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98
G.B. v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V; Van der Ven, cited above, § 51; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004; and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004). - EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 40653/98
IORGOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …
- EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97
NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10
Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände
However, in some cases the courts refused to award damages, or awarded minimal sums, holding, in particular, that evidence proving poor conditions of detention was not sufficient to also prove that a person who had been kept in such conditions had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of them (see the domestic judgments cited in Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, §§ 62 and 66, 2 February 2006; Iliev and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, 2 February 2006.
- EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00
DOBREV v. BULGARIA
The relevant domestic law and practice under sections 1 and 2 of the SRDA has been summarised in the cases of Iovchev v. Bulgaria (no. 41211/98, §§ 76-80, 2 February 2006) and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, §§ 56 60, 8 April 2004).As regards the alleged bias of the Prosecutor's Office, the Court recalls that the guarantees of independence and impartiality under Article 6 of the Convention concern solely the courts and do not apply to the prosecution authorities, which are, as in the case at hand, mere parties to a contentious judicial proceeding (see Rezzonico v. Italy (dec.), no. 43490/98, 15 November 2001 and Iovchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41211/98, 18 November 2004).
- 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, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00
YORDANOV v. BULGARIA
In respect of the regime of detention and conditions of detention, the relevant domestic law and practice under sections 1 and 2 of the SRDA has been summarised in the cases of Iovchev v. Bulgaria (no. 41211/98, §§ 76-80, 2 February 2006) and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, §§ 56-60, 8 April 2004).As regards the alleged bias of the Prosecutor's Office, the Court reiterates that the guarantees of independence and impartiality under Article 6 of the Convention concern solely the courts and do not apply to the prosecution authorities, which are, as in the case at hand, mere parties to a contentious judicial proceeding (see Rezzonico v. Italy (dec.), no. 43490/98, 15 November 2001 and Iovchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41211/98, 18 November 2004).
- EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15158/02
KIRILOV c. BULGARIE
Il se réfère à plusieurs arrêts où la Cour a conclu à une violation de l'article 13 pour ces motifs (Iovtchev c. Bulgarie, no 41211/98, 2 février 2006 ; Stankov c. Bulgarie, no 68490/01, CEDH 2007-...).Il est également vrai que la Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de constater, dans des hypothèses où une action en application de la loi de 1988 avait été engagée par les requérants, que celle-ci s'était avérée inefficace dans ces cas particuliers compte tenu de l'approche trop formelle des juridictions dans l'établissement du préjudice moral subi par l'intéressé du fait des conditions de détention (Iovtchev c. Bulgarie, no 41211/98, § 146, 2 février 2006) ou encore de l'imposition de taxes judiciaires excessives à l'issue du procès, qui avaient dénué de son utilité l'accès à une telle procédure (Stankov c. Bulgarie, no 68490/01, § 67, CEDH 2007-).
- EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03
HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be effective in practice as well as in law (see, for example, Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, § 142, 2 February 2006). - EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 32130/03
[FRE]
Lorsque la violation concerne l'article 3, une indemnisation du dommage moral découlant de la violation doit en principe être possible et faire partie du régime de réparation mis en place (voir l'arrêt McGlinchey, précité, § 63 ; Iovtchev c. Bulgarie, no 41211/98, § 143, 2 février 2006). - EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 41153/06
DYBEKU v. ALBANIA
In any event, a lack of resources cannot in principle justify detention conditions which are so poor as to reach the threshold of severity for Article 3 to apply (see Poltoratskiy, § 148 cited above, and Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, § 136, 2 February 2006). - EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 38427/05
[FRE]
Une approche aussi formaliste est de nature à exclure l'octroi d'une réparation dans de multiples cas, dans lesquels la détention ne s'accompagne pas d'une détérioration objectivement perceptible de l'état physique ou psychique d'un détenu (voir, mutatis mutandis, Danev c. Bulgarie, no 9411/05, § 34, 2 septembre 2010, et Iovtchev c. Bulgarie, no 41211/98, § 146, 2 février 2006). - EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02
PETROV v. BULGARIA
The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicants and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, § 118, 2 February 2006). - EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 63610/00
FORUM MARITIME S.A. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 72277/01
DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 5543/06
ROSCA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 6095/11
DZHABAROV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 25820/07
STANKOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 11774/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 37449/02
SHISHMANOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00
ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 50255/12
SÜVEGES v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02
ILIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11
KUSHCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 37994/09
RADEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 22926/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 16391/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 45358/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 28674/03
SLAVCHO KOSTOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 15018/11
HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 37568/09
RHAZALI ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 36103/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 18382/05
RADKOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 9411/05
DANEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 36794/03
HRISTOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 06.03.2008 - 54659/00
GAVAZOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00
RADOSLAV POPOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 56796/00
DANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 22.05.2006 - 54578/00
ALEXOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 2888/10
ALEKSANDROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 4374/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 10307/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 54578/00
ALEXOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 4473/02
ILIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 30122/03
SIMEONOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 26057/04
IVANOVA-SOKOLOVA v. BULGARIA (II)
- EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 55712/00
KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 57847/00
NAVUSHTANOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2006 - 54659/00
GAVAZOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 24318/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 891/05
KASHAVELOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 50765/99
TODOR TODOROV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02
ZIVULINSKAS v. LITHUANIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
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 |
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
- EGMR, 22.05.2006 - 54578/00
- EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 54578/00
- 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
Wird zitiert von ... (8) Zitiert selbst (12)
- VerfG Brandenburg, 25.08.2010 - VfGBbg 11/10
Ablehnung des Antrags auf Erlass einer eA die darauf gerichtet ist, Träger …
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
12/10/2006. - KAG Münster, 12.07.2010 - 28/09
Einführung einer Verteilung der Dienstzeiten auf 5,5 Tage-Woche; Verstoß gegen §§ …
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
28/09/2007. - EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00
YORDANOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
56856/00.
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 16391/05
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
16391/05. - EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
57830/00. - EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 28674/03
SLAVCHO KOSTOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
28674/03. - EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
27887/06. - EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 37449/02
SHISHMANOV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
37449/02. - EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 22/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
22/08/2008. - EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00
DOBREV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 54578/00
55389/00. - EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00
ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 45358/04
[FRE]
- 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).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
- EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
Concerning the fact that the Minister of Justice has power to make proposals to the Supreme Judicial Council in respect of the careers of the judges, the Court does not consider that this alone establishes that they are not independent of the executive (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 40, § 79) Moreover, in many Contracting States it is the executive which appoints judges and that does not cast doubt on their independence (see Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 29, § 66). - EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
Concerning the fact that the Minister of Justice has power to make proposals to the Supreme Judicial Council in respect of the careers of the judges, the Court does not consider that this alone establishes that they are not independent of the executive (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 40, § 79) Moreover, in many Contracting States it is the executive which appoints judges and that does not cast doubt on their independence (see Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 29, § 66). - EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97
MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
Secondly, it must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 281, § 73, and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 38784/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-I).
- EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 43490/98
REZZONICO contre l'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
As regards the alleged bias of the prosecutor, the Court recalls that the guarantees of impendence and impartiality under Article 6 of the Convention concern solely the courts and do not apply to the prosecution authorities, which are, as in the case at hand, mere parties to a contentious judicial proceeding (see Rezzonico v. Italy (dec.), no. 43490/98, 15 November 2001). - EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98
TODOROV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
Concerning the participation of a prosecutor in the proceedings, the Court recalls that in the case of Todorov v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 39832/98, 14 March 2002) it examined an identical complaint and found that, given the practical role played by the prosecutor, there was no reason to hold that his or her participation as a "special party" in the proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act infringes the principle of equality of arms. - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
Moreover, Article 6 of the Convention does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
Referring to the Court's judgments in the cases of Nikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 38884/97, 30 January 2003) and Shishkov v. Bulgaria (no. 38822/97, 9 January 2003), the applicant concluded that his detention had not been justified. - EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
This period does not appear excessive (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 22, § 56, and Touroude v. France (dec.), no. 35502/97, 3 October 2000). - EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97
O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
Facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a charge (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, §§ 34 and 36, ECHR 2001-X). - EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97
NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
Referring to the Court's judgments in the cases of Nikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 38884/97, 30 January 2003) and Shishkov v. Bulgaria (no. 38822/97, 9 January 2003), the applicant concluded that his detention had not been justified. - EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99
RACHEVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 39671/98
M.A. ET M.M. v. FRANCE
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".