Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,21556) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DIMCHO DIMOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
DIMOV v. BULGARIA
Art. 3 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 54767/00
BORGHI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12
It must therefore be considered to have been voluntary (see Borghi v. Italy (dec.), no. 54767/00, ECHR 2002-V (extracts)). - EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02
Opuz ./. Türkei
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12
In discharging this obligation, the authorities must also take into account the need to respect the rights of the presumed attacker; this may sometimes fetter their freedom of action (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116 and 121, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 129, ECHR 2009; and Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 122, 18 September 2014, where this limitation was noted in relation to the concomitant obligation under Article 2 of the Convention). - EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00
AZINAS c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12
Applicants who in such circumstances withdraw their claims or appeals deprive the national courts of the High Contracting States of the opportunity which Article 35 § 1 of the Convention offers them of addressing and so preventing or putting right the breaches alleged against them (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 40-41, ECHR 2004-III; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; Borghi, cited above; and Ignats, cited above, § 114).
- EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 63638/14
POSEVINI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12
In discharging this obligation, the authorities must also take into account the need to respect the rights of the presumed attacker; this may sometimes fetter their freedom of action (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116 and 121, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 129, ECHR 2009; and Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 122, 18 September 2014, where this limitation was noted in relation to the concomitant obligation under Article 2 of the Convention). - EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01
MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12
Applicants who in such circumstances withdraw their claims or appeals deprive the national courts of the High Contracting States of the opportunity which Article 35 § 1 of the Convention offers them of addressing and so preventing or putting right the breaches alleged against them (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, §§ 40-41, ECHR 2004-III; Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002; Borghi, cited above; and Ignats, cited above, § 114).
- EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15
BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIA
A consistent line of adverse rulings by the highest court on a point of law is normally evidence of the absence of such a prospect (see Posevini v. Bulgaria, no. 63638/14, § 54 in fine, 19 January 2017, with further references, and contrast, mutatis mutandis, Dimcho Dimov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 77248/12, § 75, 29 June 2017). - EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 10351/18
NINOVA v. BULGARIA
(a) Applicants are only required to resort to domestic remedies which, if successful, can adequately redress their complaints under the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see, by way of example, Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 29, Series A no. 40, and Dimcho Dimov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 77248/12, § 54, 29 June 2017).