Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of ...
Besprechungen u.ä.
- skmr.ch (Kurzaufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)
Die Einzelhaft als Herausforderung für den Freiheitsentzug
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (84) Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98
GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
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, cited above, §§ 80-82 and 138; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X, §§ 42-54; Labita, cited above, §§ 103-109; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, 21 July 2005, § 78; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31 and 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).Indeed, solitary confinement, which is a form of "imprisonment within the prison", should be resorted to only exceptionally and after every precaution has been taken, as specified in paragraph 53.1 of the European Prison Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006 (see Öcalan, cited above, § 191; Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §§ 139 and 145-146; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy (dec), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V, with further references; and Csüllög v. Hungary, cited above, § 31).
- EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94
Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
Equality of arms is not ensured if the applicant, or his counsel, is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (see, among other authorities Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 129, ECHR 2006-...; and Mooren v. Germany [GC] no. 11364/03, ECHR 2009-..., § 124, with further references). - EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01
SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
Equality of arms is not ensured if the applicant, or his counsel, is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (see, among other authorities Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 129, ECHR 2006-...; and Mooren v. Germany [GC] no. 11364/03, ECHR 2009-..., § 124, with further references).
- EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
It also held that only those applicants in respect of whose civil claims the 3-year limitation period as set by the Polish law had not yet expired were required to make use of the civil action relied on by the Government (see Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, ECHR 2009-..., § 154; and Latak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, ECHR 2010..., §§ 79-81 and 85). - EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 23623/07
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
The Court reiterates that any "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence will contravene Article 8 § 1 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, ECHR 2009-..., § 140, with further references and Jarkiewicz v. Poland, no. 23623/07, 6 July 2010, § 72, with further references). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-IX, § 91). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
The nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 30, 18 October 2001; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-..., § 179; and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, ECHR-2006-..., § 115 et seq., with further references). - EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99
VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or to debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II, § 48). - EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96
INDELICATO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
The nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 30, 18 October 2001; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-..., § 179; and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, ECHR-2006-..., § 115 et seq., with further references). - EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
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, cited above, §§ 80-82 and 138; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X, §§ 42-54; Labita, cited above, §§ 103-109; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, 21 July 2005, § 78; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31 and 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
- EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13
Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …
Selon cette jurisprudence, le gouvernement doit justifier l'ingérence litigieuse en présentant des motifs pertinents et suffisants (voir, par exemple, K. et T. c. Finlande [GC], no 25702/94, § 154, CEDH 2001-VII, Kutzner c. Allemagne, no 46544/99, § 65, CEDH 2002-I, P., C. et S. c. Royaume-Uni, no 56547/00, § 114, CEDH 2002-VI, S. et Marper c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos 30562/04 et 30566/04, § 101, CEDH 2008, S.H. et autres c. Autriche [GC], no 57813/00, § 91, CEDH 2011, Piechowicz c. Pologne, no 20071/07, § 212, 17 avril 2012, Hanzelkovi c. République tchèque, no 43643/10, § 72, 11 décembre 2014, Parrillo c. Italie [GC], no 46470/11, § 168, CEDH 2015, Zaieţ c. Roumanie, no 44958/05, § 50, 24 mars 2015, Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko et autres c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], no 17224/11, §§ 89, 121, 27 juin 2017, et Pavel Shishkov c. Russie, no 78754/13, §§ 95-97, 2 mars 2021). - EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 13421/03
[ENG]
They are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-106, 17 April 2012) and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 44-45, 17 April 2012).The relevant domestic law and practice regarding the right to visits in detention are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 118-122, 17 April 2012) and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 57-62, 17 April 2012).
The relevant general principles deriving from its case-law were recently summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 158-165, 17 April 2012) and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 85-92, 17 April 2012).
The relevant principles deriving from its case-law were recently summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland, (no. 20071/07, § 212, 17 April 2012) and Horych v. Poland, (no. 13621/08, §§ 122-124, 17 April 2012).
- EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 459/18
SABER v. NORWAY
11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013; and M. v the Netherlands, no. 2156/10, 25 July 2017), sometimes under Article 5 § 4 (see Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, 13 March 2007), and sometimes under Article 8 (see, among other authorities, Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012, and Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, 13 January 2009) - depending on the circumstances and the applicant's initial classification.[13] Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 239, 17 April 2012.
- EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04
[ENG]
Cependant, le maintien de l'interdiction des contacts directs ne peut se justifier que par l'existence d'un risque réel et continu de ce type (Horych c. Pologne, no 13621/08, §§ 117-132, 17 avril 2012, et Piechowicz c. Pologne, no 20071/07, §§ 205-222, 17 avril 2012). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.09.2026 - C-218/25
Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Einwanderungspolitik - Richtlinie 2008/115/EG - …
In Bezug auf die Strafhaft hat der EGMR oftmals die Bedeutung des dem Gefängnisinsassen zustehenden Rechts darauf hervorgehoben, außer Hörweite der Strafvollzugsbehörden mit seinem Anwalt zu sprechen (EGMR, 17. April 2012, Piechowicz v. Poland, CE:ECHR:2012:0417JUD002007107, § 239). - EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21
WA?�ĘSA v. POLAND
Consequently, the impugned provision does not satisfy the Convention requirements for the quality of the "law", as domestic law must indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities so as to ensure to individuals the minimum degree of protection to which they are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society (see Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 212, 17 April 2012, with further references to the Court's case-law). - EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 59460/12
PAWELKOWICZ v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law concerning strip-searches is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, § 110, 17 April 2012).Moreover the strip-search in the present case was considered necessary as the applicant was to be transported outside the prison, to court (compare and contrast Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 176, 17 April 2012, where strip-searches had been systematic, intrusive, exceptionally embarrassing, and performed daily, or even several times a day).
- EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 41216/13
PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE
In Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012, the Court rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies the applicant's complaint regarding his conditions of detention, but then went on to examine the complaint under Article 8 and found a violation on account of the restrictions on the applicant's contact with his family during his detention. - EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 10034/09
FLIS v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the dangerous detainee regime, monitoring of detainees and personal checks are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 110-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 49-56, 17 April 2012).Simultaneously the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 30, 000 (thirty thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law in similar cases (see, inter alia, Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012 and Horych v. Poland, no. 13621/08, 17 April 2012).
- EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 1804/11
WÓDKA v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of dangerous detainee status are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012).In this connection, the conditions of the applicant's detention cannot be compared to the special regime conditions of the applicants Horych (Horych v. Poland, judgment of 17 April 2012, no. 13621/08) or Piechowicz (Piechowicz v. Poland, judgment of 17 April 2012, no. 20071/07).
- EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14
PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO
- EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 50130/12
BANDUR v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 72/17
TAS c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 8 other applications
- EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 50255/12
SÜVEGES v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03
POROWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 42201/17
ÖGRETEN c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 1480/16
HASHEMI v. AZERBAIJAN and 6 other applciations
- EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14
GÁBOR NAGY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12
OVSJANNIKOV v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 9635/13
DEJNEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2235/02
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 446/10
PUGZLYS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 18.06.2024 - 17/19
SPÎNU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 47687/13
BAMOUHAMMAD c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 73731/17
EPURE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 63748/13
PSHIBIYEV ET BEROV c. RUSSIE et 4 autres affaires
- EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 32538/10
AHMADOV c. AZERBAÏDJAN et 4 autres affaires
- EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 8826/20
NAMAZLI v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 38144/20
DELTUVA v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 13621/08
HORYCH ET 4 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 5136/11
PRUS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.05.2024 - 3646/17
MAFALANI v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 60906/16
NOWAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.05.2019 - 9825/13
TASEV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 45358/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 26.06.2025 - 5648/21
OR?�OWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 11148/18
BOJAR v. POLAND
- EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 39496/17
BECHTA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 31806/17
FILAS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 41436/11
PAWLAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 29869/13
KARWOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 5532/10
SWIDERSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 653/12
KARYKOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 59285/12
ROMANIUK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08
CHYLA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 10662/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08
[ENG]
- EGMR - 13875/20 (anhängig)
I.B. c. PORTUGAL et 4 autres affaires
- EGMR - 59946/17 (anhängig)
TROVATO v. ITALY and 3 other applications
- EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 39052/18
WARDASZKO v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.12.2020 - 34461/16
JUSIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 48852/17
HANSEN v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 30647/17
BORA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 20811/15
DUDEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 54952/14
CHOWANIEC v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 36140/11
KORGUL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 67974/14
LO?ƒSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.09.2015 - 44027/12
LIPCZY?ƒSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 24426/03
ALFANO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 02.07.2015 - 9599/13
NOWAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 12120/11
KWIEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 12042/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 37775/09
[ENG]
- EGMR - 45466/21 (anhängig)
MILNER v. POLAND
- EGMR - 28059/25 (anhängig)
ULEMEK v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 33023/17
FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 52641/16
K.P. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 09.07.2020 - 45564/15
WALCZAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 60537/15
ORLOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 57292/12
PALUCH v. POLAND
- EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 37648/02
PAOLELLO c. ITALIE
- EGMR - 23325/22 (anhängig)
AMEEN v. PORTUGAL and 3 other applications
- EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 29790/20
VELECKA AND BUI-VELECKIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 43008/16
MARCINIAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 48218/13
WIEWIÓR v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 47800/17
LENCZUK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 11137/13
BERLIOZ c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 11800/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 71760/11
REMBAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 43575/09
RIINA c. ITALIE
- EGMR - 316/24 (anhängig)
FAID c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 62395/12
DEJNEK v. POLAND
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".