Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASIL SASHOV PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 14+2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (six month period) Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14+2 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 14+2 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  That approach fell short of the standards stemming from this Court's case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Ivan Vasilev, cited above, § 79) and prevented the proceedings from providing the applicant effective redress (contrast with McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 172-74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  If the force was potentially deadly and the conduct of the officers concerned was such as to put the applicant's life at risk, then Article 2 is applicable (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Tzekov v. Bulgaria, no. 45500/99, § 40, 23 February 2006; and Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007).
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  In the case of an arguable allegation of a breach of Article 2 resulting from the use of deadly force, Article 13 calls not only for a thorough and effective investigation, but in addition requires that compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach be, in principle, available as part of the range of redress (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 170 and 171, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), with further references).

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  The general principles governing such situations have been summarised in paragraphs 93-97 of the Court's judgment in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 23.02.2006 - 45500/99

  TZEKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  If the force was potentially deadly and the conduct of the officers concerned was such as to put the applicant's life at risk, then Article 2 is applicable (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Tzekov v. Bulgaria, no. 45500/99, § 40, 23 February 2006; and Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007).
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 14383/03

  SASHOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  Moreover, there is no indication, and it has not been alleged by the applicant, either before the domestic authorities or before the Court, that the officers uttered racial slurs at any point during the events in question (compare with Celniku, cited above, § 80 in fine, and contrast with Nachova and Others, cited above, §§ 35 in fine and 153; with Osman v. Bulgaria, no. 43233/98, §§ 85 and 86, 16 February 2006; with Turan Cakir v. Belgium, no. 44256/06, § 80, 10 March 2009; and with Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 14383/03, § 80, 7 January 2010).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  The Court does not consider that it must question the correctness of that interpretation; it must base its examination on the provisions of the domestic law as they were applied to the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 35, Series A no. 62, and Vasilescu v. Romania, 22 May 1998, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III).

• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In a more recent case, Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 63106/00, §§ 21 and 60-61, 10 June 2010), the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed a similar claim, holding that the actions of the police had been proportionate and lawful, even though the individual against whom they had used firearms had not been suspected of committing a violent offence or of being dangerous.

  Unlike previous cases against Bulgaria in which the Court found that the rules governing the use of force for the arrest of unarmed and non-dangerous individuals were deficient in that they allowed the police to use firearms against them (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 99-102, ECHR 2005-VII; Tzekov, cited above, §§ 53-56; Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, §§ 43-47, 10 June 2010; and Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, §§ 56-60, 7 October 2010), the present case concerns an armed and dangerous individual who was using firearms against the police.

• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 24329/02

  SOARE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  De plus, il ne ressort pas du dossier et le requérant n'a pas indiqué aux autorités internes ou à la Cour que les policiers impliqués dans l'incident avaient proféré des propos racistes au moment des faits (Celniku, précité, § 80 ; Vasil Sashov Petrov c. Bulgarie, no 63106/00, § 69, 10 juin 2010; et, a contrario, Natchova, précité, § 153, Osman c. Bulgarie, no 43233/98, §§ 85 et 86, 16 février 2006; Stoica c. Roumanie, no 42722/02, § 128, 4 mars 2008; et Turan Cakir c. Belgique, no 44256/06, § 80, 10 mars 2009).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01

  MIZIGÁROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

  It also notes that, unlike the situation obtaining in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, the authorities did not have before them any concrete information capable of suggesting that there had been any racial motive behind the applicant's arrest, detention, or, ultimately, his death (Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, § 72, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

  PASHOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In previous cases, the Court has examined complaints initially raised about the length of criminal proceedings in a rape case as falling to be examined under Article 3; it has found that payment of compensation (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII) and legal aid (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, ECHR 2010, and Ilbeyi KemaloÄŸlu and Meriye KemaloÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, 10 April 2012) constitute elements of the positive obligations of the State authorities to provide appropriate and sufficient redress in cases under Articles 2 and 3; it has also found violations of the rights protected by these provisions in cases where the applicants had obtained pecuniary compensation but the criminal investigation had resulted in inappropriately lenient punishment of the perpetrators or in no punishment at all - regardless of the late registration of the complaints under this head (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, 20 December 2007, and Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 63106/00, §§ 31-32, 10 June 2010).