Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Michail Borissowitsch Chodorkowski

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  The Court has repeatedly held that there is no question that a prisoner forfeits all of his Article 8 rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-117, ECHR 2015 with further references; also Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 836, 25 July 2013).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  Öffentlicher Dienst und civil rights

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  While it is true that the examination of whether or not a right claimed by an applicant exists or not in the domestic legal order is one more common under, for example, Article 6 (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 40, ECHR 2007-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 24, 20 March 2009) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2002-VII), the Court has also considered the position in domestic law and national judicial practice as part of its analysis of the applicability of Article 8 to a given complaint (see, for example, Manenc v. France (dec.), no. 66686/09, 21 September 2010, and Aldeguer Tomás v. Spain, no. 35214/09, §§ 76-77, 14 June 2016).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  While it is true that the examination of whether or not a right claimed by an applicant exists or not in the domestic legal order is one more common under, for example, Article 6 (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 40, ECHR 2007-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 24, 20 March 2009) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2002-VII), the Court has also considered the position in domestic law and national judicial practice as part of its analysis of the applicability of Article 8 to a given complaint (see, for example, Manenc v. France (dec.), no. 66686/09, 21 September 2010, and Aldeguer Tomás v. Spain, no. 35214/09, §§ 76-77, 14 June 2016).

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  The Court has repeatedly held that there is no question that a prisoner forfeits all of his Article 8 rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-117, ECHR 2015 with further references; also Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 836, 25 July 2013).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 36677/97

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  This could arise where the international treaty provision is directly applicable (see S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 46-48, ECHR 2002-III) or where requisite domestic legislation applying it has been enacted (see Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 296-B).
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  While it is true that the examination of whether or not a right claimed by an applicant exists or not in the domestic legal order is one more common under, for example, Article 6 (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 40, ECHR 2007-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 24, 20 March 2009) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2002-VII), the Court has also considered the position in domestic law and national judicial practice as part of its analysis of the applicability of Article 8 to a given complaint (see, for example, Manenc v. France (dec.), no. 66686/09, 21 September 2010, and Aldeguer Tomás v. Spain, no. 35214/09, §§ 76-77, 14 June 2016).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 15287/89

  BEAUMARTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  This could arise where the international treaty provision is directly applicable (see S.A. Dangeville v. France, no. 36677/97, §§ 46-48, ECHR 2002-III) or where requisite domestic legislation applying it has been enacted (see Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 296-B).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  ALDEGUER TOMAS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  While it is true that the examination of whether or not a right claimed by an applicant exists or not in the domestic legal order is one more common under, for example, Article 6 (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 40, ECHR 2007-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 24, 20 March 2009) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2002-VII), the Court has also considered the position in domestic law and national judicial practice as part of its analysis of the applicability of Article 8 to a given complaint (see, for example, Manenc v. France (dec.), no. 66686/09, 21 September 2010, and Aldeguer Tomás v. Spain, no. 35214/09, §§ 76-77, 14 June 2016).
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 28403/05

  VINTMAN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  Thirdly, and most importantly, the Convention itself does not grant prisoners the right to choose their place of detention (see Vintman v. Ukraine, no. 28403/05, § 78, 23 October 2014 and Rodzevillo v. Ukraine, cited above, § 83, as regards intra-state transfer requests; and Plepi, cited above, and Serce, cited above, § 55, as regards inter-state transfer requests).
• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 38771/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  Admittedly, the Court has also held, in the context of intra-state transfers, that that discretion, particularly as regards the distribution of the prison population, is not absolute (see Rodzevillo v. Ukraine, no. 38771/05, § 83, 14 January 2016).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 66686/09
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 70258/01
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 56710/13

  LABACA LARREA c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 53344/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 10781/10

  MISICK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 35049/08

  SERCE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 11546/05

  PLEPI v. ALBANIA AND GREECE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14

  EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen

  11546/05, 33285/05 and 33288/05, 4 May 2010; Serce v. Romania, no. 35049/08, § 53, 30 June 2015; and Palfreeman v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 59779/14, § 33, 16 May 2017).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21

  M.L. v. POLAND

  It is also important in this context to keep in mind the following views expressed by the Court (see Palfreeman v. Bulgaria, 59779/14 (dec.), § 34, 6 May 2017):.
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 840/18

  PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

  Between August 2011 and September 2019 the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Sofia Prison (details about his conviction and his time in Sofia Prison may be found in Shahanov and Palfreeman v. Bulgaria, nos. 35365/12 and 69125/12, §§ 15-21, 21 July 2016, and Palfreeman v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 59779/14, §§ 4-12, 16 May 2017).