Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BULATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bulatovic v. Montenegro

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BULATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10
• EGMR, 01.02.2017 - 67320/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

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

  The Court reiterates that in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 90, 8 February 2005, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 24, Series A no. 257-B), that is whether the applicant's detention was too lengthy or not, which question was examined in paragraphs 144 to 150 above.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 requires the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012).

 
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  As there were no exceptional circumstances in the present case that could justify such lengthy proceedings (compare and contrast to Chraidi v. Germany, cited above, §§ 43-45), the Court considers that the applicant's detention exceeding five years was extended beyond a reasonable time (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 71 in limine and 77, 8 June 2006; I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, §§ 98 and 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 175 and 189, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 65655/01

  Menschenrechte: Überlange Untersuchungshaft, "La Belle"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  While very long periods of detention do not automatically violate Article 5 § 3, the Court notes that it is usually exceptional circumstances that justify such long periods of detention (see, for example, Chraidi v. Germany, no. 65655/01, §§ 46-48, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 25875/03

  GELFMANN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  Ill-treatment must, however, attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum 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 state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Verbint v. Romania, no. 7842/04, § 63, 3 April 2012, and Gelfmann v. France, no. 25875/03, § 48, 14 December 2004).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  Even if detention is justified under Article 5 § 3, that provision may still be infringed if the accused's detention is prolonged beyond a reasonable time because the proceedings have not been conducted with the required expedition, as Article 5 § 3 requires that in respect of a detained person the authorities show "special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings" (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 71, Series A no. 244).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 requires the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  The Court reiterates that an individual can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, a breach of the Convention and have provided redress (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  However, the risk of absconding necessarily decreases as the time spent in detention passes by, because the likelihood that the period spent in custody will be deducted from the prison sentence which the detainee may expect if convicted is likely to make the prospect of prison less daunting and reduce his temptation to flee (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  VERBINT v. ROMANIA