Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORIS KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOSTADINOV c. BULGARIE

  Art. 3 MRK
  [FRA]

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (24)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  In relation to this latter point, it is settled case-law that when considering a claim for just satisfaction, the Court is not bound by domestic scales or standards (see, among other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 99 (a), Series A no. 94; Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 47, Series A no. 330-B; and Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 190, 1 July 2014), even in relation to costs referable to domestic proceedings (see König v. Germany (Article 50), 10 March 1980, § 23, Series A no. 36; Eckle v. Germany (Article 50), 21 June 1983, § 35, Series A no. 65; and Papamichalopoulos and Others, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  In this case, the purpose of the proceedings before the Bulgarian prosecuting authorities was precisely to obtain redress for the substantive breach of Article 3 of the Convention and to ensure compliance with the procedural limb of this Article (see, mutatis mutandis, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 50, Series A no. 12; Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 18, Series A no. 32; and The Sunday Times, cited above, § 18).
• EGMR, 07.05.1974 - 1936/63

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  In relation to this head of claim, the Court finds it appropriate firstly to distinguish between damage caused by a breach of the Convention and costs incurred by the applicant to prevent this breach or to obtain redress therefor (see Neumeister v. Austria (Article 50), 7 May 1974, § 43, Series A no. 17; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 16, Series A no. 38; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, cited above, § 14; and Dimitrov and Others, cited above, § 180).

• EGMR, 21.06.1983 - 8130/78

  Eckle./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  In relation to this latter point, it is settled case-law that when considering a claim for just satisfaction, the Court is not bound by domestic scales or standards (see, among other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 99 (a), Series A no. 94; Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 47, Series A no. 330-B; and Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 190, 1 July 2014), even in relation to costs referable to domestic proceedings (see König v. Germany (Article 50), 10 March 1980, § 23, Series A no. 36; Eckle v. Germany (Article 50), 21 June 1983, § 35, Series A no. 65; and Papamichalopoulos and Others, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  In relation to this head of claim, the Court finds it appropriate firstly to distinguish between damage caused by a breach of the Convention and costs incurred by the applicant to prevent this breach or to obtain redress therefor (see Neumeister v. Austria (Article 50), 7 May 1974, § 43, Series A no. 17; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 16, Series A no. 38; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, cited above, § 14; and Dimitrov and Others, cited above, § 180).
• EGMR, 18.10.1982 - 6878/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  Costs and expenses are recoverable under Article 41 (former Article 50) of the Convention if it is established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among many other authorities, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (Article 50), 18 October 1982, § 17, Series A no. 54).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  In relation to this latter point, it is settled case-law that when considering a claim for just satisfaction, the Court is not bound by domestic scales or standards (see, among other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 99 (a), Series A no. 94; Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 47, Series A no. 330-B; and Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 190, 1 July 2014), even in relation to costs referable to domestic proceedings (see König v. Germany (Article 50), 10 March 1980, § 23, Series A no. 36; Eckle v. Germany (Article 50), 21 June 1983, § 35, Series A no. 65; and Papamichalopoulos and Others, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  The questions whether the applicant has in fact been so affected and whether he or she is actually the victim of a breach go to the merits of the case (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, §§ 33 and 38, Series A no. 28; Doğan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 8803-8811/02, 8813/02 and 8815-8819/02, § 93, ECHR 2004-VI (extracts); Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 106-07, ECHR 2011-IV; and Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 61, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 73235/12

  IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  It is true that the police resorted to the use of force while trying to protect participants in the Sofia Gay Pride parade against possible attacks, and thus with a view to discharging Bulgaria's positive obligations under Articles 3, 11 and 14 of the Convention (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, §§ 66, 72 and 94-100, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  The general principles with respect to the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 3 of the Convention not to detain persons under their jurisdiction in inhuman or degrading conditions were recently set out in detail in paragraphs 225-44 of the Court's pilot judgment in Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13, 27 January 2015).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 25/02

  BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 51284/09

  GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 2594/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 16999/04

  SAMÜT KARABULUT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 29835/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 59273/10

  PETKOV ET PARNAROV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 73869/10

  CASTALDO c. ITALIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV v. UKRAINE

  The burden to prove that this was the case rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 45044/06

  KSENZ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The burden to prove this rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 72-78, ECHR 2000-XII, and, among recent authorities, Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, §§ 52-54, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 07.05.2024 - 13186/20

  TSAAVA AND KMUZOV v. GEORGIA

  The burden to prove that this was the case rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016).

• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 75186/12

  Russland muss Nawalny Entschädigung zahlen

  The burden to prove that this was the case rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 47145/14

  MAMMADLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  It follows that the Government are estopped from pleading non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 52-53, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 44, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 2 other applications

  It is thus open to question whether the Government were estopped from raising that objection: firstly because they did so belatedly (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 52-53, 15 December 2016; Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 44, 21 January 2016; and G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, §§ 68-70, 4 April 2019), and secondly because it contradicted their earlier submissions on the point.
• EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  R.R. AND R.D. v. SLOVAKIA

  The burden to prove that this was the case rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  G.S. c. BULGARIE

  This raises the question whether the Government are estopped from pleading non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Dhahbi v. Italy, no. 17120/09, §§ 24-25, 8 April 2014; G.C. v. Italy, no. 73869/10, §§ 36-37, 22 April 2014; Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 44, 21 January 2016; and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 52-54, 15 December 2016).
• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 76813/16

  KUCHTA AND MĘTEL v. POLAND

  The burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that this was the case (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 840/18

  PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

  As borne out by the facts of several such cases which have come before the Court, that is the usual remedy in those situations (see, for instance, Vladimir Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61275/00, §§ 17-19, 16 October 2008; Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 14383/03, §§ 21-25, 7 January 2010; Hristovi v. Bulgaria, no. 42697/05, §§ 24-31 and 53, 11 October 2011; and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, §§ 25-29, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17054/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 11157/11

  YORDANOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 2674/07

  SERGEY RYABOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 40384/06

  DEVYATKIN v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 08.06.2017 - 75832/13

  M.M. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 78907/16

  YANCHOVICHIN c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 29896/17

  BAGIROV AND IBISHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 32731/17

  KOSTOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 32617/16

  APOPII v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 71333/10

  LAVRENTYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 37023/13

  KANCIAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 3627/07

  SOKOVNIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  YUSIV v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 46419/16

  ABISHOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 4670/16

  CANUDA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 34720/16

  KVIRIKASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 25238/08

  SARSEMBAYEV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications