Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WIESER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic and Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 2293/03
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 12350/04

  WAINWRIGHT c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  The assessment of the minimum level of severity is 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 health of the victim (see as a recent authority Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, § 41, 26 September 2006, with further references).

  Finally, in a case concerning the strip search of visitors to a prisoner which had a legitimate aim but had been carried out in breach of the relevant regulations, the Court found that this treatment did not reach the minimum level of severity prohibited by Article 3 but was in breach of the requirements under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, 20 September 2006).

• EKMR, 24.01.1968 - 3321/67

  GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF GREECE ; GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY v. THE …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  3321/67 et al., Commission's report of 5 November 1969, Yearbook 12, p. 186; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 110, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  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, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94

  IWÁNCZUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  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, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  Similarly, where the search has no established connection with the preservation of prison security and prevention of crime or disorder, issues may arise (see, for example, Iwanczuk, cited above, §§ 58-59 where the search of the applicant, a remand prisoner detained on charges of non-violent crimes, was conducted on him when he wished to exercise his right to vote; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2003-II, where the strip-searching was systematic and long term without convincing security needs).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  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 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 41526/10

  DORDEVIC c. CROATIE

  Elle a considéré qu'un traitement était « dégradant'en ce qu'il était de nature à inspirer à ses victimes des sentiments de peur, d'angoisse et d'infériorité propres à les humilier et à les avilir et à briser éventuellement leur résistance physique ou morale (Hurtado c. Suisse, 28 janvier 1994, avis de la Commission, § 67, série A no 280-A et Wieser c. Autriche, no 2293/03, § 36, 22 février 2007).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, opinion of the Commission, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 3363/08

  LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, opinion of the Commission, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).

 
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  VALIULIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority, capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, § 67, Series A no. 280-A; and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Commission report, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

  HAJNAL v. SERBIA

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, opinion of the Commission, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  BEGANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, opinion of the Commission, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 20136/11

  ILIEVSKA v.

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, opinion of the Commission, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 15526/10

  V.D. v. CROATIA

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, opinion of the Commission, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  MADER v. CROATIA

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, opinion of the Commission, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 19072/08

  HABIMI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 28847/08

  GLADOVIC v. CROATIA