Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LONGIN v. CROATIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Longin v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  In some other cases, however, no violation of Article 3 was found, as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities was compensated for by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the daytime (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103-107, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  Remedies available to a litigant at domestic level are considered effective if they prevent the alleged violation or its continuation, or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  metre of personal space during his 35-day period of detention (see Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 41-49, 16 June 2005), and in the Mayzit case where the applicant was afforded less than 2 square metres during nine months of his detention (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005) as well as in Ananyev case where the applicants were afforded less than three square metres of personal space (see Ananyev and Others, § 148, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  metre of personal space during his 35-day period of detention (see Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 41-49, 16 June 2005), and in the Mayzit case where the applicant was afforded less than 2 square metres during nine months of his detention (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005) as well as in Ananyev case where the applicants were afforded less than three square metres of personal space (see Ananyev and Others, § 148, cited above).
• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 26137/04

  BARTA v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  Therefore, Article 35 § 1 does not require that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 45, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  In some other cases, however, no violation of Article 3 was found, as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities was compensated for by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the daytime (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103-107, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-A, and Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-II).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  According to the Court's case-law, 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 level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  According to the Court's case-law, 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 level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

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

• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  On the other hand, even in cases where the inmates appeared to have at their disposal sufficient personal space and a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court noted other aspects of physical conditions of detention as being relevant for the assessment of compliance with Article 3 and found a violation of that provision since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; and Trepashkin v. Russia, cited above, § 94), lack of outdoor exercise (see Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012) and poor sanitary and hygiene conditions (see Jirsák v. the Czech Republic, no. 8968/08, §§ 64-73; Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 164-166).
• EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 32439/19

  LEROY c. FRANCE

  Elle rappelle en particulier que parmi ces exigences, figurent les garanties procédurales offertes par l'« instance'dont parle l'article 13, et notamment la participation effective de la personne détenue à l'examen de son grief ainsi que le traitement rapide et diligent de celui-ci (idem, § 208, Longin c. Croatie, no 49268/10, § 41, 6 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 49439/21

  HANZEVACKI v. CROATIA

  m of personal space throughout his stay, which lasted for seventy-five days (see paragraph 7 above; see also the Court's findings of a violation of Article 3 in respect of stays in Zagreb Prison in Ulemek, cited above, §§ 128-31, and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012).

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 37522/16

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

  m of personal space for at least 152 days out of his 432-day detention there (see paragraph 5 above; see also the Court's findings of a violation of Article 3 in respect of stays in Zagreb Prison in Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, §§ 128-31, 31 October 2019, and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 6813/12

  GEORGIOU ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Invoquant la jurisprudence de la Cour dans les affaires Longin c. Croatie (no 49268/10, 6 novembre 2012) et Valasinas c. Lituanie (no 44558/98, CEDH 2001-VIII), il estime que la surpopulation alléguée n'est pas en soi un élément suffisant pour aboutir à un constat de violation de l'article 3 de la Convention, étant donné notamment les conditions d'hygiène dans la prison de Patras, les conditions matérielles régnant dans les dortoirs (concernant plus précisément l'éclairage et la ventilation, qui, pour le Gouvernement, étaient suffisants) et la possibilité pour les intéressés de travailler et de bénéficier d'activités récréatives au sein de cet établissement.
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 54872/08

  KASPEROVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  I could accept that the Chamber, bearing in mind its findings with regard to the degrading treatment suffered by the applicant (see paragraph 43 of the judgment), might have considered that the applicant had suffered some non-pecuniary damage even as a result of his short detention which could not be compensated solely by the finding of a violation (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 88, ECHR 2001-III; Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, § 117, 18 November 2008; and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 76, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 29843/13

  JURIC v. CROATIA

  As to the present case the Court notes that it has consistently held that, in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, before bringing their complaints to the Court applicants are required to afford the Croatian Constitutional Court the opportunity to remedy their situation and address the issues they wish to bring before the Court (see, for example, Buckal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 20, 3 April 2012; Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 36, 6 November 2012; and Mur?.ic v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 81, ECHR 2016).