Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADU POP v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  The Court reiterates that assigning counsel to represent a party to the proceedings does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  In this connection, the Court has previously held that where domestic proceedings have taken place it is not its task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and that, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  The Court stresses, firstly, that it is not its task to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes said, as a court of fourth instance, for the decisions of domestic courts, which, according to the case-law, are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).

• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  The Court stresses, firstly, that it is not its task to act as a court of appeal or, as is sometimes said, as a court of fourth instance, for the decisions of domestic courts, which, according to the case-law, are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  The Court also reiterates that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV and Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, § 164, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 46468/99

  MANOUSSOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  While the obligation imposed is of a procedural nature, distinguishable from the substantive rights set out in the Convention and Protocols, it flows from the very essence of this procedural right that it is open to individuals to complain of its alleged infringement in Convention proceedings (see Manoussos v. the Czech Republic and Germany (dec.), no. 46468/99, 9 July 2002).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00

  KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  The Court also reiterates that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV and Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, § 164, 15 June 2006).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-75, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04

  Although this Article cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005, and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 61467/12

  REZMIVES c. ROUMANIE et 3 autres affaires

  À cet égard, la Cour renvoie aux constats concernant les prisons de Gherla (Ciprian Vladut et Ioan Florin Pop c. Roumanie, nos 43490/07 et 43304/07, §§ 59-63, 16 juillet 2015 ; Apostu c. Roumanie, no 22765/12, § 83, 3 février 2015 ; Tirean c. Roumanie, no 47603/10, §§ 37-46, 28 octobre 2014 ; Axinte c. Roumanie, no 24044/12, §§ 49-50, 22 avril 2014 ; Leontiuc c. Roumanie, no 44302/10, §§ 56-62, 4 décembre 2012 ; et Radu Pop c. Roumanie, no 14337/04, §§ 95-101, 17 juillet 2012), d'Aiud (Tirean, précité, §§ 40-46 ; Macovei c. Roumanie, no 28255/08, §§ 29-32, 19 novembre 2013 ; et Gagiu c. Roumanie, no 63258/00, §§ 77-82, 24 février 2009), d'Oradea (Ardelean c. Roumanie, no 28766/04, §§ 51-54, 30 octobre 2012, et Hadade c. Roumanie, no 11871/05, §§ 73-78, 24 septembre 2013), de Craiova (Axinte, précité, §§ 44-50 ; Enache c. Roumanie, no 10662/06, §§ 56-62, 1er avril 2014 ; et Ciolan c. Roumanie, no 24378/04, §§ 39-46, 19 février 2013), de Târgu-Jiu (Bordenciu c. Roumanie, no 36059/12, §§ 22-33, 22 septembre 2015), de Pelendava (voir la requête no 46833/14 du groupe d'affaires Matei et 17 autres c. Roumanie, nos 32435/13 et 17 autres, arrêt du 7 avril 2016), de Rahova (Apostu, précité, § 83 ; Iacov Stanciu, précité, §§ 171-179 ; Flamanzeanu c. Roumanie, no 56664/08, §§ 89-100, 12 avril 2011 ; et Pavalache c. Roumanie, no 38746/03, §§ 87-101, 18 janvier 2011), de Tulcea (Bahna c. Roumanie, no 75985/12, §§ 43-53, 13 novembre 2014), d'Iasi (Todireasa c. Roumanie (no 2) no 18616/13, §§ 56-64, 21 avril 2015 ; Bahna, précité, §§ 43-53 ; Axinte, précité, §§ 46-50 ; Ticu c. Roumanie, no 24575/10, §§ 62-68, 1er octobre 2013 ; Olariu c. Roumanie, no 12845/08, §§ 26-32, 17 septembre 2013 ; Mazalu c. Roumanie, no 24009/03, §§ 42-54, 12 juin 2012 ; Petrea c. Roumanie, no 4792/03, §§ 43-50, 29 avril 2008), et de Vaslui (Todireasa c. Roumanie (no 2), précité, §§ 56-64, et Bahna, précité, §§ 43-53).
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 40324/16

  BIVOLARU c. FRANCE

  Elle a aussi rappelé qu'elle avait « déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 en raison principalement du manque d'espace individuel suffisant, d'une absence d'hygiène, ou de ventilation ou d'éclairage inadéquats dans la prison de Gherla (Porumb c. Roumanie, no 19832/04, § 72, 7 décembre 2010, et Radu Pop c. Roumanie, no 14337/04, § 96, 17 juillet 2012)'(§ 49).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 20307/02

  ALI CONTRE LA ROUMANIE ET 120 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  14337/04.

• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 24044/12

  AXINTE c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention en raison principalement du manque d'espace individuel suffisant, d'une absence d'hygiène, ou de ventilation ou d'éclairage inadéquats dans les prisons de Gherla (Porumb c. Roumanie, no 19832/04, § 72, 7 décembre 2010, et Radu Pop c. Roumanie, no 14337/04, § 96, 17 juillet 2012), de Baia Mare (Petrea Chisalau c. Roumanie, no 36680/03, § 51, 26 juin 2012, et Radu Pop, précité, § 96), de Botosani (Florea c. Roumanie, no 37186/03, § 53, 26 octobre 2010, Cucolas c. Roumanie, no 17044/03, § 94, 14 septembre 2010, Budaca c. Roumanie, no 57260/10, § 42, 17 juillet 2012, et Stoleriu c. Roumanie, no 5002/05, § 66, 16 juillet 2013), de Craiova (Ciolan c. Roumanie, no 24378/04, § 44, 19 février 2013), de Timisoara (Blejusca c. Roumanie, no 7910/10, § 43, 19 mars 2013), ainsi que de Iasi (Mazalu c. Roumanie, no 24009/03, §§ 52-54, 12 juin 2012, et Olariu c. Roumanie, no 12845/08, § 31, 17 septembre 2013).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 1777/06

  [ENG]

  The Court therefore concludes that those decisions do not demonstrate how the legal actions proposed by the Government could have afforded the applicant immediate and effective redress for the purposes of this part of his complaint (Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 80, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 30595/09

  [ENG]

  In this regard, it notes that in previous applications lodged against Romania concerning similar complaints it has already found that, given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the legal action suggested by the Government does not constitute an effective remedy (see Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, § 84, 18 October 2011, and Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 80, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 7910/10

  [ENG]

  The Court also notes that in recent judgments concerning similar complaints it has already found that, given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the legal actions indicated by the Government did not constitute effective remedies (see Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, § 84, 18 October 2011, and Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 80, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 39633/10

  COSTEL GACIU v. ROMANIA

  The Court also notes that it has previously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of overcrowding, lack of hygiene, ventilation or adequate lighting in Gherla Prison (see Porumb v. Romania, no. 19832/04, § 72, 7 December 2010; Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 96, 17 July 2012; and Axinte v. Romania, no. 24044/12, § 50, 22 April 2014).
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 43873/10

  TORAN ET SCHYMIK c. ROUMANIE

  In recent judgments concerning similar complaints the Court has already found that, given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the legal actions indicated by the Government did not constitute effective remedies (see Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, § 84, 18 October 2011, and Radu Pop v. Romania, no. 14337/04, § 80, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 45887/06

  ANDREI v. ROMANIA AND MATEI v. ROMANIA

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la Roumanie, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention, pour ce qui est des conditions matérielles de détention et plus particulièrement de la surpopulation carcérale (voir, par exemple, Radu Pop c. Roumanie, no 14337/04, §§ 96 et suiv., 17 juillet 2012, et Iacov Stanciu c. Roumanie, no 35972/05, § 195, 24 juillet 2012).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 4233/09

  AUREL POPA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 67416/11

  STETCO c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 49549/11

  COTLET v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 5818/10

  RADU (II) c. ROUMANIE