Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (29)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  It is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a fact-finding tribunal where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (ibid., citing Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, § 95, 17 December 2009, and McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

  In those circumstances, it is difficult to accept that that inquiry was attended by a sufficient degree of public scrutiny and involved the next-of-kin of the deceased victim to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests, as required under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III, and El-Masri, cited above, § 184).

  The facts of the present case are in no way to be compared with those in the cases cited in the judgment as relevant authorities (namely Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, ECHR 2011 - which concerned the alleged killing of Iraqi nationals by members of the British armed forces in Iraq; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001-III - where the police killed three suspected terrorists by firing over 100 rounds into the car in which the latter were travelling; and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, ECHR 2001-VII - where the applicant's brother was abducted and murdered by village guards).

• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  It may also be engaged where those agents, when conducting an operation, fail to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods with a view to avoiding or at least minimising incidental loss of life (see Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, §§ 77-79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; Saoud v. France, no. 9375/02, §§ 88-90, 9 October 2007; and Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, § 72, 6 November 2012).

  The Court notes, however, that this is not the first case against Bulgaria in which it finds that the procedural response to a death at the hands of the police has failed to meet the Convention standards (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, §§ 77-84, ECHR 2000-VI; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 141-46, ECHR 2002-IV; Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, no. 46317/99, §§ 108-16, 23 February 2006; Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, §§ 64-68, 7 October 2010; Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, §§ 83-85, 6 November 2012; and Filipovi, cited above, §§ 64-73) It should be emphasised that appropriate procedures for ensuring the accountability of agents of the State are indispensable in maintaining public confidence and meeting the legitimate concerns that might arise from the use of force.

• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  citing Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 284, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

  The facts of the present case are in no way to be compared with those in the cases cited in the judgment as relevant authorities (namely Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, ECHR 2011 - which concerned the alleged killing of Iraqi nationals by members of the British armed forces in Iraq; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001-III - where the police killed three suspected terrorists by firing over 100 rounds into the car in which the latter were travelling; and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, ECHR 2001-VII - where the applicant's brother was abducted and murdered by village guards).

 
• EGMR, 19.02.2002 - 34501/97

  AKAY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  It cannot be overlooked that the panels of the Military Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation which heard the case against the officers were entirely composed of professional judges, who, on account of their training and experience, were less likely than a jury or lay judges to be influenced by external pressures (see, mutatis mutandis, Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001; Akay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 34501/97, 19 February 2002; Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), no. 34896/97, § 104, 5 December 2002; and Mircea v. Romania, no. 41250/02, § 75, 29 March 2007).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  With regard to the questions whether those costs were necessarily incurred and reasonable as to quantum, the Court notes that it is settled case-law that when considering a claim for just satisfaction it is not bound by domestic scales or standards (see, among other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 99, Series A no. 94; Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 47, Series A no. 330-B; Öneryıldız, cited above, § 175; and Mileva and Others, cited above, § 125 in limine).
• EGMR, 23.02.2006 - 46317/99

  OGNYANOVA AND CHOBAN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  The Court notes, however, that this is not the first case against Bulgaria in which it finds that the procedural response to a death at the hands of the police has failed to meet the Convention standards (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, §§ 77-84, ECHR 2000-VI; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 141-46, ECHR 2002-IV; Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, no. 46317/99, §§ 108-16, 23 February 2006; Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, §§ 64-68, 7 October 2010; Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30086/05, §§ 83-85, 6 November 2012; and Filipovi, cited above, §§ 64-73) It should be emphasised that appropriate procedures for ensuring the accountability of agents of the State are indispensable in maintaining public confidence and meeting the legitimate concerns that might arise from the use of force.
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06

  PREVITI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  The facts that some of the judges hearing the case ruled against them on some points or decided to proceed in a certain manner do not constitute such proof (see Sofri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 37235/97, ECHR 2003-VIII; Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 52 in limine, 13 October 2005; Previti v. Italy (dec.), no. 45291/06, § 258 in limine, 8 December 2009; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  That said, it cannot be overlooked that none of those matters prevented the Sofia Military Court and the Military Court of Appeal from making detailed findings of fact and on their basis convicting the officers of aggravated murder and awarding the applicants damages in relation to that (see, mutatis mutandis, Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 62608/00

  AGROTEHSERVIS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  The Court has already had the occasion to condemn in the strongest terms attempts by non-judicial authorities to intervene in court proceedings (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 80, ECHR 2002-VII, and Agrotehservis v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 62608/00, 19 October 2004).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  On the merits, the Court starts by noting that Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence (see, among many other authorities, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.05.1974 - 1936/63

  NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 41250/02

  MIRCEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97

  SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 69180/01

  KARANDJA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 27243/95

  SABUKTEKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 36822/02

  BRACCI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 43124/98

  TÜRKMEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.10.1982 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN AND DE MEYERE v. BELGIUM (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, §§ 268-73, 15 March 2007; Kolevi v. Bulgaria, no. 1108/02, §§ 221 and 223, 5 November 2009; Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 131, ECHR 2009; Finger, cited above, §§ 140 and 142; Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria, no. 5335/05, §§ 73 and 75, ECHR 2011; Ivan Stoyanov Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 7963/05, §§ 41 and 43, 4 June 2013; and Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, §§ 185-87 and 190, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt

  S'il n'en allait pas ainsi, nonobstant son importance fondamentale, l'interdiction légale générale de la torture et des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dégradants serait inefficace en pratique et il serait possible dans certains cas à des agents de l'État de fouler aux pieds, en jouissant d'une quasi-impunité, les droits de ceux soumis à leur contrôle (voir, parmi maints autres arrêts, Assenov et autres c. Bulgarie, 28 octobre 1998, § 102, Recueil 1998-VIII, Labita, précité, § 131, Krastanov, précité, § 57, Vladimir Romanov, précité, § 81, Ali et Ayse Duran c. Turquie, no 42942/02, § 60, 8 avril 2008, Georgiy Bykov, précité, § 60, El-Masri, précité, §§ 182 et 185 ainsi que les autres références qui y figurent, Dembele, précité, § 62, Alberti, précité, § 62, Saba, précité, § 76, et Dimitrov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 77938/11, § 135, 1er juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 84388/17

  KURAL v. TÜRKIYE

  As to the remaining part of the claim for pecuniary damage (concerning expenses, costs and fees associated with the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court), the Court considers it appropriate to examine it under the head of costs and expenses (see Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 180, 1 July 2014), and will do so below.

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 1049/17

  NIKA v. ALBANIA

  However, the subsequent hasty public statements made by senior officials to the effect that the victims had been shot at close range and with weapons that were different from those in use by the National Guard or the police force (see paragraphs 17-18 above) raise doubts as to whether the executive authorities were committed from the outset to shedding full light on those serious events and to not diverting or interfering inappropriately with the criminal investigation (compare Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 148, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 29263/12

  S.Z. c. BULGARIE

  Elle a ainsi conclu à la violation des obligations procédurales découlant de l'article 2 ou de l'article 3 de la Convention dans plus de 45 arrêts (voir notamment, en ce qui concerne des violences administrées par des particuliers, Anguelova et Iliev c. Bulgarie, no 55523/00, 26 juillet 2007, et les arrêts précités Nikolay Dimitrov, M.N. c. Bulgarie, et P.M. c. Bulgarie, et, en ce qui concerne des décès ou des mauvais traitements imputables aux autorités, Velikova c. Bulgarie, no 41488/98, CEDH 2000-VI, Anguelova c. Bulgarie, no 38361/97, CEDH 2002-IV, Dimitrov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 77938/11, 1 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  However, the sensitive nature of the case and the obstacles are less an excuse for delay than a further reason for the State to have organised its judicial system to overcome the earlier defects and omissions by the prompt and diligent establishment of the facts at the criminal trial and to have brought those responsible to justice, if any, in order to avoid or disprove any appearance of a cover-up (see McKerr, cited above, and Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 148, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  MAKUCHYAN AND MINASYAN v. AZERBAIJAN AND HUNGARY

  While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow life-endangering offences or grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished (see Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 95-96, ECHR 2004-XII; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 53, 24 March 2009; and Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 142, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the two internal investigations by the Ministry of Internal Affairs were attended by a sufficient degree of public scrutiny, or that they involved the next-of-kin of the deceased to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests, as required under Article 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 137, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  D.M.D. v. ROMANIA

  Having regard to the finding that a breach of the procedural aspect of Article 3 occurred notably because of the length of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 52 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaint concerning the alleged violation of the "reasonable time" requirement enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 171, 1 July 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).].
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA

  The Court notes in this connection that it has previously acknowledged, in cases concerning the fairness of proceedings, that public statements made by high-ranking politicians might, in view of their content and the manner in which they were made, be seen as attempts to exert undue influence on judges and, therefore, constitute an element to be examined in determining whether the right to an "independent and impartial tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been respected in the circumstances of the respective case (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 80, ECHR 2002-VII; Kinský v. the Czech Republic, no. 42856/06, §§ 94-95, 9 February 2012; Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 162, 1 July 2014; Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29908/11, §§ 146-48, 21 January 2016; and Civinskaite v. Lithuania, no. 21218/12, § 119, 15 September 2020).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 61504/10

  TOPAL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 7309/04

  VEFA SERDAR c. TURQUIE