Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YORDANOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  In the light of this conclusion, the Court is not required to determine whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" for one of the aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 37, § 82 and Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 28, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  In a sphere covered by the written law, the "law" is the enactment in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 40653/98

  IORGOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  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 - 42346/98

  G.B. v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  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, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  In the light of this conclusion, the Court is not required to determine whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" for one of the aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 37, § 82 and Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 28, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  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, § 95).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII and Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 59, 25 October 2005).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  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, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  The Court considers that in the present case the period of eight days, considering that the applicant's appeal was in transit through the postal network for an unknown number of days, does not appear excessive (see, a contrario, Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 43-45, 9 January 2003, where the Court found a period of seventeen days for examining an appeal against detention as being too long, and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where two such periods of twenty-three days were considered excessive).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56856/00

  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, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE
• EKMR, 05.03.1964 - 1994/63

  CINQUANTE-SEPT HABITANTS DE LOUVAIN ET DES ENVIRONS de cette ville contre la …

• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  Se référant à l'arrêt Yordanov c. Bulgarie, no 56856/00, 10 août 2006, il affirme que les requérants ont omis d'introduire une action en dommages et intérêts en vertu de la loi sur la responsabilité de l'État pour faire valoir leur droit au respect de leur domicile.
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 32130/03

  PETYO PETKOV c. BULGARIE

  La législation interne concernant les conditions pour le placement en détention provisoire, dans sa rédaction d'après l'an 2000, a été résumée dans les arrêts suivants de la Cour: Dobrev c. Bulgarie, no 55389/00, §§ 32 à 35, 10 août 2006 et Yordanov c. Bulgarie, no 56856/00, §§ 21 à 24, 10 août 2006.
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 39014/12

  KORMEV c. BULGARIE

  Dans ces circonstances, la Cour ne saurait statuer ex officio sur la question de savoir si le requérant aurait dû épuiser les voies de recours nouvellement introduites en droit interne (voir, parmi d'autres, N.C. c. Italie [GC], no 24952/94, § 44, CEDH 2002-X; Sejdovic c. Italie [GC], no 56581/00, §§ 40-41, CEDH 2006-II; Dobrev c. Bulgarie, no 55389/00, §§ 112 et 113, 10 août 2006; Yordanov c. Bulgarie, no 56856/00, §§ 76 et 77, 10 août 2006).

 
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 44290/07

  SABEVA v. BULGARIA

  A failure on their part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may therefore give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 163, ECHR 2005-VIII; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 60, 25 October 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 56856/00, § 83, 10 August 2006; Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, § 74, 12 October 2006; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, § 48, 7 February 2008; and Gavazov, cited above, § 95).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA

  The amendments and the resulting practice of the Bulgarian courts are summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of Dobrev v. Bulgaria (no. 55389/00, §§ 32-35, 10 August 2006), and Yordanov v. Bulgaria (no. 56856/00, §§ 21-24, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31244/06

  LOVEIKA v. LITHUANIA

  A failure on their part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may therefore give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 163, ECHR 2005-VIII; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 60, 25 October 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 56856/00, § 83, 10 August 2006; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, § 48, 7 February 2008; and Gavazov, cited above, § 95).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 68177/01

  YAMBOLOV c. BULGARIE

  Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents ont été résumés dans les affaires Nikolova c. Bulgarie ([GC], no 31195/96, §§ 25-36, CEDH 1999-II) pour ce qui concerne la période avant le 1er janvier 2000) et Yordanov c. Bulgarie (no 56856/00, §§ 21-24, 10 août 2006) concernant la période après le 1er janvier 2000).
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 27061/04

  NIKOLAY GERDJIKOV c. BULGARIE

  Le droit interne pertinent concernant le placement en détention provisoire et l'étendue du contrôle de la régularité de la détention a été résumé dans les arrêts suivants de la Cour: Dobrev c. Bulgarie, no 55389/00, §§ 32-35, 10 août 2006 ; Yordanov c. Bulgarie, no 56856/00, §§ 21-24, 10 août 2006 et Botchev c. Bulgarie, no 73481/01, § 36, 13 novembre 2008.
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 63778/00

  ZELENI BALKANI v. BULGARIA

  In the light of this conclusion, the Court is not required to determine whether the interference pursued one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2 and whether it was "necessary in a democratic society" for the achievement of those aims (see, mutatis mutandis, in respect of a similar conclusion in reference to Article 8 of the Convention, Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 37, § 82, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 28, ECHR 2000-V and Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 56856/00, § 116, 10 August 2006; and, in reference to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, no. 2507/03, § 62, 27 September 2005).