Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOTEVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 42027/98
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  The Court reiterates that "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11 and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  This investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others, cited above, p. 3290, § 102 and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  Relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Assenov and Others (judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII), Velikova v. Bulgaria (no. 41488/98, ECHR 2000-VI) and Anguelova v. Bulgaria (no. 38361/97, ECHR 2002-IV), she argued that this gave rise to a strong presumption that the injuries were imputable to the police officers.
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  Even if in view of the applicant's injuries her allegations of "savage beating" appear excessive, the Court emphasises that, in respect of a person deprived of her liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 38).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  The Court reiterates that "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11 and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  The District Court's finding that the applicant has not been subjected to violence appears questionable: the court conceded that the applicant's right scapula had been injured, but quite readily accepted that this was a self-inflicted injury, without stating any basis for such a conclusion, without delving more into her allegations, and without testing different versions about to the actual course of the events (see, for a decision to the contrary, Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, § 30).

• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Moreover, the Court considers it speculative to accept that an action under the SRDA would have been an ineffective domestic remedy in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Assenov and Others, cited above, § 112; Kamenerov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 44041/98, 16 December 1999 and Toteva v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 42027/98, 3 April 2003).

  In the instant case, the Court does not consider that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004 and Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 11, 23 September 2004).

• EGMR, 21.11.2013 - 23380/09

  BOUYID c. BELGIQUE

  They referred in particular to the judgments in Salman v. Turkey ([GC] no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), Esen v. Turkey (no. 29484/95, 22 July 2003), Rivas v. France (no. 59584/00, 1 April 2004), Toteva v. Bulgaria (no. 42027/98, 19 May 2004) and Aydin and Yunus v. Turkey (nos. 32572/96 and 33366/96, 22 June 2004).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account statements from the applicant's heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004; Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 65, 25 October 2007; and Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 60-62, 22 July 2008).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 47877/99

  RACHEVI v. BULGARIA

  In the instant case, the Court does not consider that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003 and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 42908/98

  KIRILOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In the instant case, the Court does not consider that the hourly rate of EUR 50 is excessive (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003, and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, examined and confirmed the locus standi of their heirs or close relatives, such as brothers or sisters, to pursue the proceedings before the Court, including in cases brought under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2012; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 61-62, 22 July 2008; and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 55956/00

  VATEVI v. BULGARIA

  In the instant case, the Court considers that the hourly rate of EUR 70 is excessive and that a reduction of the same is appropriate (see, a contrario, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV, Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004, and Rachevi v. Bulgaria, no. 47877/99, § 111, 23 September 2004, where the Court found an hourly rate of EUR 50 reasonable).
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 60939/00

  KARCHEVA AND SHTARBOVA v. BULGARIA

  In the instant case, the Court considers that the hourly rate of EUR 70 is excessive and that a reduction of the same is appropriate (see, a contrario, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV; Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004 and Rachevi, cited above, § 111, where the Court found an hourly rate of EUR 50 reasonable).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56793/00

  BABICHKIN v. BULGARIA

  In the instant case, the Court considers that the hourly rate of EUR 70 is excessive and that a reduction of the same is appropriate (see, a contrario, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 176 in fine, ECHR 2002-IV; Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 111, 30 January 2003; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 75, 19 May 2004 and Rachevi, cited above, § 111, where the Court found an hourly rate of EUR 50 reasonable).
• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 11830/03

  GHARIBASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Notably, the enquiry was entrusted to the same division of the prosecution authority - the RDPO - of which the alleged perpetrator, Mr M., was a member, even though the applicant clearly objected to such an obvious conflict of interests (see Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 63, 19 May 2004; OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 1661/08

  CHERNAYA v. UKRAINE