Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVICS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Savics v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 17892/03
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  These arrangements, intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 80-82, ECHR 2006-IX; Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 42-54, ECHR 2000-X; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 103-109, ECHR 2000-IV; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 78, 21 July 2005; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31, 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  CSÜLLÖG v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  These arrangements, intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 80-82, ECHR 2006-IX; Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 42-54, ECHR 2000-X; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 103-109, ECHR 2000-IV; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 78, 21 July 2005; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31, 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  It has found that whilst strip-searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  These arrangements, intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 80-82, ECHR 2006-IX; Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 42-54, ECHR 2000-X; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 103-109, ECHR 2000-IV; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 78, 21 July 2005; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31, 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  It has found that whilst strip-searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94

  IWÁNCZUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  It has found that whilst strip-searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  While, as stated above, those special prison regimes are not per se contrary to Article 3, under that provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Van der Ven, cited above, § 50; and, more recently, Horych, citred above, § 89, and Piechowicz, cited above, § 162).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  Public-order considerations may lead the State to introduce high-security prison regimes for particular categories of detainees and, indeed, in many State Parties to the Convention more stringent security rules apply to dangerous detainees (see Horych v. Poland, no. 13621/08, § 88, 17 April 2012, and Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 161, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  The relevant provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesas likums) have been quoted elsewhere (see Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)).

• BVerfG, 05.11.2016 - 2 BvR 6/16

  Bei der Anordnung der stichprobenartigen Durchsuchung von Strafgefangenen muss …

  Mit Entkleidungen und der Inspektion von Körperöffnungen verbundene Durchsuchungen können danach durch die Erfordernisse der Sicherheit und Ordnung der Haftanstalt gerechtfertigt sein; sie müssen aber in schonender Weise - unter anderem außerhalb möglichen Sichtkontakts anderer Gefangener oder unnötigerweise anwesenden Personals - und dürfen nicht routinemäßig, unabhängig von fallbezogenen Verdachtsgründen, durchgeführt werden (siehe im Einzelnen EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Van der Ven ./. Niederlande, Beschwerde Nr. 50901/99, Rn. 62; Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Lorsé u.a. ./. Niederlande, Beschwerde Nr. 52750/99, Rn. 74;… Urteil vom 12. Juni 2007, Frérot ./. Frankreich, Beschwerde Nr. 70204/01, Rn. 41, 47; Urteil vom 27. November 2012, Savics ./. Lettland, Beschwerde Nr. 17892/03, Rn. 133, 142 ff.; Urteil vom 10. Oktober 2013, Voloshyn ./. Ukraine, Beschwerde Nr. 15853/08, Rn. 53 f.; Urteil vom 14. Januar 2014, Lindström u.a. ./. Finnland, Beschwerde Nr. 24630/10, Rn. 43; Urteil vom 31. Juli 2014, Jaeger ./. Estland, Beschwerde Nr. 1574/13, Rn. 40 ff.; Urteil vom 14. Juni 2016, Pugzlys ./. Polen, Beschwerde Nr. 446/10, Rn. 58 ff.).
• BVerfG, 10.07.2013 - 2 BvR 2815/11

  Körperliche Durchsuchung im Strafvollzug (allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht; …

  Mit Entkleidungen und der Inspektion von Körperöffnungen verbundene Durchsuchungen können danach durch die Erfordernisse der Sicherheit und Ordnung der Haftanstalt gerechtfertigt sein; sie müssen aber in schonender Weise - unter anderem außerhalb möglichen Sichtkontakts anderer Gefangener oder unnötigerweise anwesenden Personals - und dürfen nicht routinemäßig, unabhängig von fallbezogenen Verdachtsgründen, durchgeführt werden (s. im Einzelnen EGMR…, Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Van der Ven ./. Niederlande, Beschwerde Nr. 50901/99, Rn. 62;… Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Lorsé u.a. ./. Niederlande, Beschwerde Nr. 52750/99, Rn. 74;… Urteil vom 12. Juni 2007, Frérot ./. Frankreich, Beschwerde Nr. 70204/01, Rn. 41, 47; Urteil vom 27. November 2012, Savics ./. Lettland, Beschwerde Nr. 17892/03, Rn. 133, 142 ff.).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA

  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, 25.02.2014 - 17502/07

  AVOTINS c. LETTONIE

  En revanche, ce recours n'est pas effectif lorsque la violation alléguée résulte d'une interprétation ou d'une application prétendument erronée d'une disposition interne dont la constitutionnalité ou la conventionalité n'est pas en soi contestée (Liepajnieks c. Lettonie (déc.), no 37586/06, § 73, 2 novembre 2010, et Savics c. Lettonie, no 17892/03, §§ 113-114, 27 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 22412/08

  EMARS v. LATVIA

  In any event, were the applicant to consider that Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Law is contrary to his fundamental rights a complaint in that regard to the Constitutional Court would have provided a relevant remedy in the Latvian legal system (see Grisankova and Grisankovs, cited above; Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, §§ 73-76, 2 November 2010; Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 113-117, 27 November 2012; Mihailovs v. Latvia, no. 35939/10, §§ 157-158, 22 January 2013; Nagla v. Latvia, no. 73469/10, § 48, 16 July 2013; and Latvijas jauno zemnieku apvieniba v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, §§ 44-45, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 06.02.2014 - 2689/12

  SEMIKHVOSTOV v. RUSSIA

  However, this provision does require the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012; and Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 130, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6087/03

  GRIMAILOVS v. LATVIA

  However, this provision does require the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012; and Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 130, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  ASALYA v. TURKEY

  With reference to persons deprived of their liberty, Article 3 imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012; and Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 130, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  LATVIJAS JAUNO ZEMNIEKU APVIENTBA v. LATVIA

  The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies is, however, limited to making use of those remedies which are likely to be effective and available, meaning that their existence is sufficiently certain and they are capable of directly redressing the alleged violation of the Convention (see Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 104, 27 November 2012, and Bazjaks, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  ILJINS v. LATVIA

  The Court observes that since its judgment in Melnitis, it has received more examples in which the administrative courts have dealt with detainees" complaints about conditions of their detention (see also, in relation to improved clarity of the applicable legislation as of 23 December 2008 and the subsequent practice of administrative courts, Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 111-12, 27 November 2012).