Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CSÜLLÖG v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13+3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  The prohibition of contacts with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (see, among others, Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V).

  Nor does the Court find any element in the case file suggesting that the dangerousness of the applicant - although he was convicted of conspiracy to murder - can be compared to that of mafia prisoners (compare and contrast Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  The Court reiterates that, according to its 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).

  Subject to compliance with the requirements of the Convention, the Contracting States are afforded - as the Court has held on many previous occasions - some discretion as to the manner in which they provide the relief required by Article 13 and conform to their Convention obligation under that provision (see mutatis mutandis Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 154, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  Having found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 38 above), the Court is satisfied that the applicant has an "arguable claim" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  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, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  The Court reiterates that, according to its 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, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  In that light and given the limited periods at issue, these factors on their own do not justify a conclusion that the applicant was held in conditions in breach of Article 3 (compare, mutatis mutandis, Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, § 101, 26 November 2015, and contrast, for example, the conditions applicable to an applicant for a period of eleven months, for protective purposes, during his pre-trial detention in X v. Turkey, no. 24626/09, §§ 36-45, 9 October 2012, or those in Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, §§ 33-38, 7 June 2011, and Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, § 82, 11 March 2004, which concerned periods of two or three years).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND

  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).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 24.03.2021 - C-845/19

  Okrazhna prokuratura - Varna

  47 EGMR, 7. Juni 2011, Csüllög/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2011:0607JUD003004208, § 46).

 
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  As regards the specific matter of special prison regimes, such as detention in a high-security department, the Court has already held that such detention, be it on remand or following a criminal conviction, does not in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 80-82 and 138, ECHR 2006-IX; Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, §§ 13-16, 7 June 2011; Piechowicz, cited above, §§ 161 and 162, 17 April 2012; and Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 93, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08

  HORYCH v. POLAND

  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, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  SAVICS v. LATVIA

  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 v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 80-82, ECHR 2006-IX; Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 42-54, ECHR 2000-X; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 103-109, ECHR 2000-IV; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 78, 21 July 2005; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31, 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
• EGMR, 18.04.2023 - 43966/19

  N.M. c. BELGIQUE

  La décision doit ainsi permettre d'établir que les autorités ont procédé à une réévaluation qui tient compte de tout changement dans les circonstances, la situation ou le comportement du détenu (Csüllög c. Hongrie, no 30042/08, § 31, 7 juin 2011).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 45358/04

  CHERVENKOV c. BULGARIE

  Destinés à prévenir les risques d'évasion, d'agression ou la perturbation de la collectivité des détenus, ces régimes ont comme base la mise à l'écart de la communauté pénitentiaire accompagnée d'un renforcement des contrôles (voir, par exemple, Ramirez Sanchez c. France [GC], no 59450/00, §§ 80-82 et 138, CEDH 2006-IX, Messina c. Italie (no 2), no 25498/94, § 42-54, CEDH 2000-X, Labita c. Italie [GC], no 26772/95, §§ 103-109, CEDH 2000-IV, Rohde c. Danemark, no 69332/01, § 78, 21 juillet 2005, Van der Ven, précité, §§ 26-31 et 50, et Csüllög c. Hongrie, no 30042/08, §§ 13-16, 7 juin 2011).
• EGMR - 23325/22 (anhängig)

  AMEEN v. PORTUGAL and 3 other applications

  If so, have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of the effect on them of the restrictions stemming from the high-security prison regime under which they have been detained, the material conditions of their detention and the lack of meaningful activities (see Piechowicz, cited above, §§ 162-65; Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, §§ 27-31, 7 June 2011; and Mursic, cited above, § 101)?.
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  GLOWACKI v. POLAND

  These arrangements, intended to prevent 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).