Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN DER VEN c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 8 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Frais et dépens - demande rejetée (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.08.2001 - 50901/99
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or 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, for example, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).

  Whilst it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the prison authorities should assist him in maintaining contact with his family (see Messina (no. 2), judgment cited above, § 61), the Court recognises at the same time that some measure of control over prisoners' contacts with the outside world is called for and is not in itself incompatible with the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI).

• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  On the other hand, the removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or degrading punishment (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V).

  As a matter of fact, the Italian special regime was significantly more restrictive both as regards association with other prisoners and as regards frequency of visits: association with other prisoners was entirely prohibited and only family members were allowed to visit, once a month and for one hour (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, § 13, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  It must also be shown that the costs were actually and necessarily incurred and that they are reasonable as to quantum (see, among many other authorities, Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 61, ECHR 2001-IX).

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  The Court has previously found that strip-searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime (see Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; Iwańczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001; and McFeeley and Others, cited above, §§ 60-61).
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  To this extent the case may be compared to a series of applications lodged against Italy where the applicants alleged that the special prison regime to which they were subjected pursuant to section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act resulted in conditions which violated Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Messina (no. 2) (decision cited above); Indelicato v. Italy (dec.), no. 31143/96, 6 July 2000; Ganci v. Italy (dec.), no. 41576/98, 20 September 2001; and Bonura v. Italy (dec.), no. 57360/00, 30 May 2002).
• EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 41576/98

  GANCI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  To this extent the case may be compared to a series of applications lodged against Italy where the applicants alleged that the special prison regime to which they were subjected pursuant to section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act resulted in conditions which violated Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Messina (no. 2) (decision cited above); Indelicato v. Italy (dec.), no. 31143/96, 6 July 2000; Ganci v. Italy (dec.), no. 41576/98, 20 September 2001; and Bonura v. Italy (dec.), no. 57360/00, 30 May 2002).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  Treatment has been held by the Court to be "inhuman" because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering, and also "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in the victims feeling of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see, for example, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or 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, for example, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be "inhuman" or "degrading", the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EKMR, 15.05.1980 - 8317/78

  McFEELEY et al. v. the UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 12.07.1984 - 10448/83

  D. contre la BELGIQUE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.09.2015 - 23380/09

  BOUYID v. BELGIUM

  It is not for the Court to impose general rules of conduct on law-enforcement officers; instead, its task is limited to examining the applicants" individual situation to the extent that they allege that they were personally affected by the treatment complained of (see, mutatis mutandis, Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 62, 4 February 2003; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 50, ECHR 2003-II; and Lindström and Mässeli v. Finland, no. 24630/10, § 41, 14 January 2014).
• 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, 06.10.2005 - 14683/03

  SYLLA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For the determination of the appeal are also of relevance the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 February 2003 [Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands] (nos. 52750/99 and 50901/99).

  An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice is given in the Court's judgment of 4 February 2003 in the case of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 26-35, ECHR 2003-II).

  The findings of the CPT with regard to the EBI, as set out in its Report on the visit to the Netherlands from 17 to 27 November 1997, as well as the Netherlands Government's response to these findings are set out in the Court's judgment of 4 February 2003 in the case of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 32-35, ECHR 2003-II).

  (Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, Application no. 50901/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 63; see also Lorsé et al v. the Netherlands, Application no. 52750/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 74).

  The Court reiterates the general considerations as set out in its judgments in the similar cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 46-53, ECHR 2003-II) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99, §§ 58-65, 4 February 2003) and its findings in these cases.

• BVerfG, 23.09.2020 - 2 BvR 1810/19

  Körperliche Durchsuchung eines Strafgefangenen nach einem Besuch (Durchsuchungen …

  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 nicht notwendigen, anwesenden Personals - und dürfen nicht anlasslos, routinemäßig und unabhängig von Verdachtsgründen durchgeführt werden (vgl. jüngst EGMR, Pawelkowicz v. Poland, Beschluss vom 6. November 2018, Nr. 59460/12, § 27; Dejnek v. Poland, Urteil vom 1. Juni 2017, Nr. 9635/13, § 60 und § 70; s. auch grundlegend EGMR, Iwanczuk v. Poland, Urteil vom 15. November 2001, Nr. 25196/94, § 59; Van der Ven v. The Netherlands, Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Nr. 50901/99, § 60 f.; und Wainwright v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 26. September 2006, Nr. 12350/04, § 42 f.).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 8196/02

  SALAH v. THE NETHERLANDS

  An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice is given in the Court's judgment of 4 February 2003 in the case of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 26-35, ECHR 2003-II).

  The findings of the CPT with regard to the EBI, as set out in its Report on the visit to the Netherlands from 17 to 27 November 1997, as well as the Netherlands Government's response to these findings are set out in the Court's judgment of 4 February 2003 in the case of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 32-35, ECHR 2003-II).

  (Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, Application no. 50901/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 63; see also Lorsé et al v. the Netherlands, Application no. 52750/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 74).

  Reiterating the general considerations as set out in its judgments in the similar cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 46-53, ECHR 2003-II) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99, §§ 58-65, 4 February 2003) and its findings in these cases, the Court considers that, to the extent that this complaint concerns the weekly routine strip-searches to which the applicant was subjected during his stay in the EBI, it cannot determine on the basis of the case file the admissibility of this part of the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

• EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 36384/22

  BAYBASiN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Accordingly, the applicant's situation could not be characterised as one involving "routine" strip searching, which had been found to be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention in Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II) and in one of the applicant's previous applications to the Court (Baybaşın v. the Netherlands, no. 13600/02, 6 July 2006).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  In any event, the Court reiterates that, although physical separation of a detainee from his visitors may be justified by security considerations in certain cases (see the above-cited Italian cases and also the Dutch cases concerning a prison regime designed to prevent escapes: Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 71, ECHR 2003-II, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 85, 4 February 2003), the measure cannot be considered necessary in the absence of any established security risk (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 117, 19 June 2007).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  In the case of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-...), strip-searches, albeit carried out in a "normal" manner, had a degrading effect and violated Article 3 of the Convention as they were performed systematically on a weekly basis as a matter of practice which lacked clear justification in the particular case of the applicant.
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  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, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14

  CEESAY v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 14683/03

  SYLLA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• VG Freiburg, 24.04.2018 - A 1 K 4712/16

  Haftbedingungen in Gambia als unmenschliche oder erniedrigende Behandlung
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08

  HORYCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 8 other applications
• VG Freiburg, 23.02.2021 - A 14 K 743/18

  Gambia; Bodyguard; Putschversuch 2014; Regierungswechsel; Militärgesetz; Zeuge …
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 51284/09

  GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07

  BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  DANILEVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.03.2008 - 54659/00

  GAVAZOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 34015/07

  ZHERDEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 55712/00

  KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 57847/00

  NAVUSHTANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 41035/98

  KEHAYOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 2264/12

  AINIS AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 59460/12

  PAWELKOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 19735/02

  ATICI v. TURKEY
• VG Sigmaringen, 27.05.2021 - A 1 K 4693/17

  Gambia: subsidiärer Schutz wegen unmenschlichen und erniedrigenden …
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  VOLOSHYN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 17239/25 (anhängig)

  KAÇAN v. TÜRKİYE
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 48852/17

  HANSEN v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 13600/02

  BAYBASIN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 14683/03

  SYLLA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 21604/02

  WARREN v. THE NETHERLANDS