Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IWÁNCZUK v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 25196/94
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94
• EGMR, 20.01.2016 - 25196/94

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94

  Moreover, it is sufficient if the victim is humiliated in his or her own eyes (see the Tyrer v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 16, § 32, Smith and Grady. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 ; 33986/96, § 120).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94

  The same holds true insofar as degrading treatment is concerned (Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 59, § 30).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94

  It must be further emphasised that the authorities exercise full control over a person held in custody and their way of treating a detainee must, in view of his or her vulnerability, be subjected to strict scrutiny under the Convention (cf., mutatis mutandis, the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 113-115).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, 6.4.2000, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

• 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, 12.06.2007 - 70204/01

  Erniedrigende Leibesvisitation eines Gefangenen

  Des conditions générales de détention - dans lesquelles s'inscrivent les modalités des fouilles imposées aux détenus - peuvent s'analyser en un traitement contraire à l'article 3 (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Van der Ven et Lorsé précités, §§ 49 et 61 respectivement), tout comme une fouille corporelle isolée (voir les arrêts Valasinas c. Lituanie, du 24 juillet 2001, no 44558/98, CEDH 2001-VIII, et Iwanczuk c. Pologne, du 15 novembre 2001, no 25196/94 ; voir aussi l'arrêt Yankov c. Bulgarie, du 11 décembre 2003, § 110).
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  WIESER v. AUSTRIA

  A search carried out in an appropriate manner with due respect for human dignity and for a legitimate purpose (see mutatis mutandis, Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 166-67, ECHR 2003-XII where there was no valid reason established for the shaving of the applicant prisoner's head) may be compatible with Article 3. However, where the manner in which a search is carried out has debasing elements which significantly aggravate the inevitable humiliation of the procedure, Article 3 has been engaged: for example, where a prisoner was obliged to strip in the presence of a female officer, his sexual organs and food touched with bare hands (Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII) and where a search was conducted before four guards who derided and verbally abused the prisoner (Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001).

 
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  JULIN v. ESTONIA

  It has found that whilst strip searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts); Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  SAVICS v. LATVIA

  It has found that whilst strip-searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 31305/09

  Russland wegen Erniedrigung eines Rekruten verurteilt

  In the case of Iwanczuk v. Poland (25196/94, §§ 54-60, 15 November 2001), the Court held that while strip searches might be necessary on occasions to ensure prison security or prevent disorder in prisons, they had to be conducted in an appropriate manner.
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1574/13

  JAEGER v. ESTONIA

  It has found that whilst strip searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts); Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001).
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 47709/99

  RACHWALSKI AND FERENC v. POLAND

  Furthermore, in considering whether a treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2001-III; Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 52, 15 November 2001).
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 59241/09

  PEREZ CARBALLO VILLAR c. FRANCE

  La Cour rappelle que les autorités doivent consacrer autant de soin à fixer un cautionnement approprié qu'à décider si le maintien d'une personne accusée en détention demeure ou non indispensable (voir, entre autres, Iwanczuk c. Pologne, no 25196/94, § 66, 15 novembre 2001, Georgieva c. Bulgarie, no 16085/02, § 30, 3 juillet 2008, et Mangouras c. Espagne [GC], no 12050/04, § 79, CEDH 2010-...).