Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,1180
EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11 (https://dejure.org/2019,1180)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.01.2019 - 18052/11 (https://dejure.org/2019,1180)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Januar 2019 - 18052/11 (https://dejure.org/2019,1180)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,1180) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ROOMAN c. BELGIQUE

    Violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Traitement dégradant) (Volet matériel);Non-violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Traitement dégradant) (Volet matériel);Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ROOMAN v. BELGIUM

    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ROOMAN v. BELGIUM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

  • lto.de (Kurzinformation)

    Belgien verurteilt: Vergewaltiger jahrelang nicht auf Deutsch therapiert

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    Although the question whether the purpose of the treatment is to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 201-03, ECHR 2012, with further references).

    This approach is also supported by the judgment in Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC] (no. 36760/06, 17 January 2012), where the Grand Chamber stated as follows:.

    [12] 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 or driving them to act against their will or conscience" (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 203, ECHR 2012).

  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    The Court has also found, under Article 3 of the Convention, that he has not been provided with appropriate care in that institution and has been held in unsuitable conditions for thirteen years, in breach of Article 3... That being stated, the Court also reiterates its established case-law to the effect that, as long as a person's detention as a mental health patient takes place in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution, the adequacy of the treatment or regime is not a matter for examination under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 51, Series A no. 33; Ashingdane, cited above, § 44; and Stanev, cited above, § 147).

    For arbitrariness to be excluded, conformity with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 is required in respect of both the ordering and the execution of the measures involving deprivation of liberty (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, § 50, Series A no. 129; O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X; Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 67 and 69, ECHR 2008; and Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 186, 28 November 2017.

  • EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

    HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    With regard to the second of the above conditions, concerning in particular the detention of a mentally disordered person, this indicates that detention may be necessary not only where the person needs therapy, medication or other clinical treatment to cure or alleviate his condition, but also where the person needs control and supervision to prevent him, for example, causing harm to himself or other persons (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV, and Stanev, cited above, § 146).
  • EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 34151/04

    PANKIEWICZ v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    It follows that the "detention" of a person as a mental-health patient will be "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e) only if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution authorised for that purpose (see Ashingdane, cited above, § 44; Pankiewicz v. Poland, no. 34151/04, §§ 42-45, 12 February 2008; and Stanev, cited above, § 147).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 2778/02

    HÜSEYIN YILDIRIM c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    In particular, the Court has held that the suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, whether physical or mental, may in itself be covered by Article 3, where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by conditions of detention for which the authorities can be held responsible (see, in particular, Hüseyin Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 2778/02, § 73, 3 May 2007, and Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, no. 44084/10, § 101, 5 March 2013).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    It has held that the conditions of detention must under no circumstances arouse in the person deprived of his liberty feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 99, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 44084/10

    GÜLAY ÇETIN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    In particular, the Court has held that the suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, whether physical or mental, may in itself be covered by Article 3, where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by conditions of detention for which the authorities can be held responsible (see, in particular, Hüseyin Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 2778/02, § 73, 3 May 2007, and Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, no. 44084/10, § 101, 5 March 2013).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

    SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    It considers that such a situation calls for an increased vigilance in reviewing whether the Convention has been complied with (see Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 96, 20 January 2009; see also Claes, cited above, § 101).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03

    RIVIERE c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    Hence, the detention of a person who is ill in inappropriate physical and medical conditions may in principle amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, § 74, 11 July 2006; and Claes, cited above, §§ 94-97).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 58749/00

    MATENCIO c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11
    The Convention does not contain any provision relating specifically to the situation of persons deprived of their liberty, let alone where they are ill, but it cannot be ruled out that the detention of a person who is ill may raise issues under Article 3 (see Matencio v. France, no. 58749/00, § 76, 15 January 2004).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

    O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

    HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

    BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  • KG, 13.02.2024 - 9 W 42/23
    Der Anspruch auf Geldentschädigung gründet sich dabei - hier vermittelt durch das Amtshaftungsrecht - auf den Schutzauftrag der Grundrechte und dient vornehmlich der Genugtuung des Verletzten, aber auch den Zwecken der wirksamen Sanktion und Prävention (vgl. Senat, Urteil vom 17. Februar 2015 - 9 U 129/13 -, juris, Rn. 53 m.w.N. seinerzeit zu menschenunwürdigen Haftbedingungen; zur Entschädigungspflicht nach Artikel 5 EMRK: EGMR, Urteil vom 31. Januar 2019 - 18052/11 - (Rooman), Rn. 208 f., 222).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht