Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HADADE v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Hadade v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  Consequently, the Court considers that their length does not appear excessive (contrast, among other authorities, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, §§ 91-94, 21 December 2000; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; and Lebedev v Russia, no. 4493/04, § 102, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  Consequently, the Court considers that their length does not appear excessive (contrast, among other authorities, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, §§ 91-94, 21 December 2000; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; and Lebedev v Russia, no. 4493/04, § 102, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  It must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors, which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see, mutatis mutandis, Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  Furthermore, in considering whether a punishment or 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 (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 22, Series A no. 58).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  However, the manner in which the applicant is subjected to these measures should not go beyond the threshold of a minimum level of severity as envisaged by the Court's case-law under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 94, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  The Court reiterates that its case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for placing a person suspected of having committed an offence in pre-trial detention: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); would, if released, take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); would commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); or would cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207, and Hendriks v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43701/04, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  The Court reiterates that its case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for placing a person suspected of having committed an offence in pre-trial detention: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); would, if released, take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); would commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); or would cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207, and Hendriks v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43701/04, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  In previous cases the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, 7 April 2009; Petrea, cited above, §§ 49-50; Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Ali, cited above, § 83).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  The Court reiterates that its case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for placing a person suspected of having committed an offence in pre-trial detention: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); would, if released, take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7); would commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10); or would cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207, and Hendriks v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43701/04, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 6586/03

  BRANDUSE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 14262/03

  RACAREANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 61467/12

  REZMIVES ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  À cet égard, la Cour renvoie aux constats concernant les prisons de Gherla (Ciprian Vladut et Ioan Florin Pop c. Roumanie, nos 43490/07 et 43304/07, §§ 59-63, 16 juillet 2015 ; Apostu c. Roumanie, no 22765/12, § 83, 3 février 2015 ; Tirean c. Roumanie, no 47603/10, §§ 37-46, 28 octobre 2014 ; Axinte c. Roumanie, no 24044/12, §§ 49-50, 22 avril 2014 ; Leontiuc c. Roumanie, no 44302/10, §§ 56-62, 4 décembre 2012 ; et Radu Pop c. Roumanie, no 14337/04, §§ 95-101, 17 juillet 2012), d'Aiud (Tirean, précité, §§ 40-46 ; Macovei c. Roumanie, no 28255/08, §§ 29-32, 19 novembre 2013 ; et Gagiu c. Roumanie, no 63258/00, §§ 77-82, 24 février 2009), d'Oradea (Ardelean c. Roumanie, no 28766/04, §§ 51-54, 30 octobre 2012, et Hadade c. Roumanie, no 11871/05, §§ 73-78, 24 septembre 2013), de Craiova (Axinte, précité, §§ 44-50 ; Enache c. Roumanie, no 10662/06, §§ 56-62, 1er avril 2014 ; et Ciolan c. Roumanie, no 24378/04, §§ 39-46, 19 février 2013), de Târgu-Jiu (Bordenciu c. Roumanie, no 36059/12, §§ 22-33, 22 septembre 2015), de Pelendava (voir la requête no 46833/14 du groupe d'affaires Matei et 17 autres c. Roumanie, nos 32435/13 et 17 autres, arrêt du 7 avril 2016), de Rahova (Apostu, précité, § 83 ; Iacov Stanciu, précité, §§ 171-179 ; Flamanzeanu c. Roumanie, no 56664/08, §§ 89-100, 12 avril 2011 ; et Pavalache c. Roumanie, no 38746/03, §§ 87-101, 18 janvier 2011), de Tulcea (Bahna c. Roumanie, no 75985/12, §§ 43-53, 13 novembre 2014), d'Iasi (Todireasa c. Roumanie (no 2) no 18616/13, §§ 56-64, 21 avril 2015 ; Bahna, précité, §§ 43-53 ; Axinte, précité, §§ 46-50 ; Ticu c. Roumanie, no 24575/10, §§ 62-68, 1er octobre 2013 ; Olariu c. Roumanie, no 12845/08, §§ 26-32, 17 septembre 2013 ; Mazalu c. Roumanie, no 24009/03, §§ 42-54, 12 juin 2012 ; Petrea c. Roumanie, no 4792/03, §§ 43-50, 29 avril 2008), et de Vaslui (Todireasa c. Roumanie (no 2), précité, §§ 56-64, et Bahna, précité, §§ 43-53).