Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BADILA v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Badila v. Romania

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  Under Article 3, 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 Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Iamandi and Bragadireanu, cited above).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  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, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106 and 107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  Under Article 3, 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 Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106 and 107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106 and 107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106 and 107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106 and 107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Iamandi and Bragadireanu, cited above).
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 64930/09

  CIUPERCESCU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)

  La Cour relève en outre qu'elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention dans des affaires similaires dans lesquelles les requérants mettaient en cause les conditions matérielles de détention dans la prison de Giurgiu, notamment en ce qui concerne le surpeuplement et accessoirement les conditions d'hygiène (Flamînzeanu c. Roumanie, no 56664/08, § 92, 12 avril 2011, Badila c. Roumanie, no 31725/04, § 76, 4 octobre 2011 et Fane Ciobanu c. Roumanie, no 27240/03, §§ 72-73, 11 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 48372/09

  MARIAN TOMA c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà conclu à plusieurs reprises à l'égard de la Roumanie à la violation de l'article 3 en raison des conditions de détention inappropriées, notamment du surpeuplement et accessoirement des conditions d'hygiène, régnant dans les mêmes prisons que celles dans lesquelles l'intéressé a été incarcéré et à des périodes proches de celles de sa détention (voir, parmi d'autres, Toma Barbu c. Roumanie, no 19730/10, § 70, 30 juillet 2013, Banu c. Roumanie, no 60732/09, §§ 36-37, 11 décembre 2012, Györgypál c. Roumanie, no 29540/08, § 73, 26 mars 2013, Scarlat c. Roumanie, nos 68492/10 et 68786/11, § 57, 23 juillet 2013, Flamînzeanu c. Roumanie, no 56664/08, § 92, 12 avril 2011, Badila c. Roumanie, no 31725/04, § 76, 4 octobre 2011, et Fane Ciobanu c. Roumanie, no 27240/03, §§ 72-73, 11 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 26089/13

  ADRIAN RADU c. ROUMANIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison principalement du manque d'espace individuel suffisant et de mauvaises conditions d'hygiène corporelle dans la prison de Giurgiu, et ce pendant une période correspondant à celle pendant laquelle le requérant y a été incarcéré (Flamînzeanu précité § 92, Badila c. Roumanie, no 31725/04, § 76, 4 octobre 2011, Ticu c. Roumanie, no 24575/10, § 62, 1er octobre 2013, et Marian Toma c. Roumanie, no 48372/09, § 33, 17 juin 2014).