Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 15018/11
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11, 61199/12
• EGMR - 15018/11 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  After analysing in detail the relevant constitutional and Convention provisions and referring to, among others, this Court's judgments in Campbell v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1992, Series A no. 233), Calogero Diana v. Italy (15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V) and Petra v. Romania (23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII), it held that a blanket authorisation to inspect the correspondence of all detainees without regard to their particular circumstances and the threat which they allegedly posed to society through such correspondence was unconstitutional.

  Therefore, as in Bochev (cited above, § 94 in fine), the Court finds no basis on which to assume that Mr Tolumov's correspondence after February 2010 has been systematically intercepted and read by the prison authorities (contrast Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 33, Series A no. 233).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  SAVICS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  It should also be noted that in cases arising from individual applications, the Court must focus its attention not on the domestic law itself but on the manner in which it has been applied to the applicant (see Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 134, 27 November 2012, with reference specifically to the prison regime of a life prisoner).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 130/10

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  In their additional observations, the Government submitted that the situation in the present case was clearly different from that obtaining in Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  In the case of Kafkaris v. Cyprus ([GC], no. 21906/04, § 97, ECHR 2008), the Grand Chamber of the Court held that while a State's choice of criminal justice system, including sentence review and release arrangements, was in principle outside the scope of the supervision carried out by the Court, and while the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment on an adult offender was not in itself prohibited by or incompatible with Article 3 or any other Article of the Convention, the imposition of an irreducible life sentence could raise an issue under Article 3. The Grand Chamber was at the same time at pains to emphasise that a life sentence did not become "irreducible" by the mere fact that in practice it could be served in full, and that it was enough for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention that such a sentence be de jure and de facto reducible (ibid., § 98 in fine).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  It must moreover - in contrast with the approach of some Bulgarian courts in the examination of claims under section 1 of the 1988 Act (see paragraphs 30-36 above, and Shahanov, cited above, § 40) - take into account the cumulative effects of the conditions of detention of which the applicant complains (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II, and, more recently, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 94, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  It must moreover - in contrast with the approach of some Bulgarian courts in the examination of claims under section 1 of the 1988 Act (see paragraphs 30-36 above, and Shahanov, cited above, § 40) - take into account the cumulative effects of the conditions of detention of which the applicant complains (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II, and, more recently, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 94, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil it, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see, as a recent authority, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-55, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 10511/10

  MURRAY c. PAYS-BAS

  This assessment must be based on rules having a sufficient degree of clarity and certainty (ibid., §§ 125 and 129; see also László Magyar v. Hungary, no. 73593/10, § 57, 20 May 2014, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 255, 257 and 262, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and the conditions laid down in domestic legislation must reflect the conditions set out in the Court's case-law (see Vinter and Others, cited above, § 128).

  Whether a life sentence was de jure and de facto reducible used to depend upon characteristics of decision-making and examples tending to suggest that a person serving a whole-life sentence would be able to obtain an adjustment of that sentence, having regard to the circumstances (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 262, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

  The Convention must be interpreted taking into account not only other human rights treaties, but also hard and soft law instruments related to it and especially the system of human rights protection of the Council of Europe within which it fits, as Article 31 § 3 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides (for a recent, laudable example, see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 204, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 57592/08

  HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts) (referring to the system of presidential clemency in the period up to January 2012).

  15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 255, 257 and 262, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

• VGH Baden-Württemberg, 20.01.2022 - 1 S 1724/20

  Feststellung der Rechtswidrigkeit eines in Polizeigewahrsam nicht ermöglichten …

  Zu den Mindestbedingungen gehört die Möglichkeit, Sanitäranlagen unter Beachtung der Intimsphäre - etwa für einen Toilettengang - nutzen zu können (EGMR, Urt. v. 08.07.2014 - 15018/11, Harakchiev u. Tolumov ./. Bulgarien -, Rn. 211; Grabenwarter/Pabel, ebd.).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10

  BIAO c. DANEMARK

  The Convention must be interpreted taking into account not only other human rights treaties, but also hard and soft law instruments related to it and especially the system of human rights protection of the Council of Europe within which it fits, as Article 31 § 3 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides (for a recent, laudable example, see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 204, ECHR 2014, (extracts)).
• VG Stuttgart, 12.05.2022 - 5 K 1433/20

  Feststellung der Rechtswidrigkeit polizeilicher Maßnahmen im Umfeld eines …

  Zu den Mindestbedingungen gehört die Möglichkeit, Sanitäranlagen unter Beachtung der Intimsphäre - etwa für einen Toilettengang - nutzen zu können (EGMR, Urteil vom 08.07.2014 - 15018/11, Harakchiev u. Tolumov ./. Bulgarien -, Rn. 211;… Grabenwarter/Pabel, EMRK, 7. Aufl. 2021, § 20 Rn. 62).
• EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 57592/08

  HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 245-246, ECHR 2014 (extracts).

  Unlike in the unanimous judgment of the same Section in the case of Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria (nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014), the majority in the present case failed to express any view as to whether, how and at what point the interpretation of the domestic law established in Bieber [2009] and R v. Newell; R v. McLoughlin [2014] changed, ceased to apply or made the applicant's situation more compatible with the principles laid down by the Grand Chamber in examining the situation of the applicants in Vinter.

• EGMR - 2634/17 (anhängig)

  MOROZOV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

  The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.

  15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts))? What were the reasons and legal grounds for applying the above measures to the applicants? The Government are invited to indicate periods when the applicants were subjected to the above measures and to provide supporting documents relating to application of these measures.

• EGMR - 46807/18 (anhängig)

  GADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications

  Some of the applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), discrimination and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.

  15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?.

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 40192/10

  TEKIN ET BAYSAL c. TURQUIE

  La Cour ne dispose d'aucun élément ou argument qui permettrait de dire que tel ne sera pas le cas dans l'examen par cette instance des griefs des requérants concernant la nature incompressible de la réclusion criminelle à perpétuité aggravée au regard de l'article 3 de la Convention (pour la jurisprudence de la Cour en la matière, voir Vinter et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos 66069/09 et 2 autres, §§ 107-131, CEDH 2013 (extraits), Harakchiev et Tolumov c. Bulgarie, nos 15018/11 et 61199/12, §§ 247-268, CEDH 2014 (extraits), László Magyar c. Hongrie, no 73593/10, §§ 55-58, 20 mai 2014, Öcalan (no 2) précité, §§ 193-207, Kaytan c. Turquie, no 27422/05, §§ 63-68, 15 septembre 2015, Gurban c. Turquie no 4947/04, §§ 30-35, 15 décembre 2015, Murray c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 10511/10, §§ 99-104, 26 avril 2016, Hutchinson c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 57592/08, §§ 37-73, 17 janvier 2017, et Matiosaitis et autres c. Lituanie, nos 22662/13 et 7 autres, §§ 156-183, 23 mai 2017 ; voir également Bodein c. France (no 40014/10, §§ 53-62, 13 novembre 2014), affaire dans laquelle la condamnation du requérant à une peine perpétuelle qui était susceptible d'être réexaminée vingt-six ans après son prononcé a été considérée conforme à la Convention ; voir aussi T.P. et A.T c. Hongrie (37871/14 et 73986/14, 4 octobre 2016) où la réclusion à perpétuité était réexaminée automatiquement au bout de 40 ans (violation)).
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 13712/11

  S.L. AND J.L. v. CROATIA

  15018/11 and 61199/12, § 185, 8 July 2014).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21

  COMPAORÉ c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 33056/16

  BOLTAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 37994/09

  RADEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR - 3234/17 (anhängig)

  KUCHEV v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications
• EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 9289/15

  IONOV AND KLIMENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 43813/16

  GATAGAZHEV AND LUGACHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 18693/14

  I.T. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 76560/14

  A.K. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.10.2022 - 50701/16

  VOLOKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 57636/16

  DILSHNAYDER AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2018 - 31044/12

  PETROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 34846/08

  DIMITROV AND RIBOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  BALKASI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 76620/14

  INDEPENDENT ORTHODOX CHURCH AND ZAHARIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 56751/13

  BULGARIAN ORTHODOX OLD CALENDAR CHURCH AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA