Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 3 (conditions of detention) Violation of Art. 3 (force-feeding) Violation of Art. 6 Violation of Art. 8 (censorship of correspondence) Violation of Art. 8 (conditions of visits in prison) Not ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 12066/02
• EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 12066/02

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning the remedies available for complaints under Article 3 of the Convention have been set out in Ostrovar v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 35207/03, 22 March 2005) and Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, §§ 68-71, 11 July 2006).

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 80, 13 September 2005).

  The Court has already found that overpopulation in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 84, 13 September 2005), especially when it lasts for long periods as in the case of the applicant, who was detained on remand for over five years in prison no. 3.

• EKMR, 08.10.1982 - 9054/80

  A. v. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  The Court finally reiterates that it is "an essential part of both private life and the rehabilitation of prisoners that their contact with the outside world be maintained as far as practicable, in order to facilitate their reintegration in society on release, and this is effected, for example, by providing visiting facilities for the prisoners' friends and by allowing correspondence with them and others" (X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9054/80, D.R. 30 p. 113).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  The Court reiterates that a measure which is of therapeutic necessity from the point of view of established principles of medicine cannot in principle be regarded as inhuman and degrading (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 69, ECHR 2006-...).

 
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law concerning access to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and, more specifically, the requirement to pay court fees (see, among many authorities, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001-VI and the further references therein).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  The Convention organs must nevertheless satisfy themselves that the medical necessity has been convincingly shown to exist (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 26, § 83).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  The Court recalls that an individual is not required to try more than one avenue of redress when there are several available (see, for example, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12, § 23).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  The Court refers to further principles established in its case-law in respect of conditions of detention (see Sarban, cited above, §§ 75-77, 4 October 2005) and of force-feeding (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 79-81, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  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).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  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 by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  The length of the period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered (see, among other authorities, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 64, 19 June 2007; Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 79, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  In any event, the Court reiterates that, although physical separation of a detainee from his visitors may be justified by security considerations in certain cases (see the above-cited Italian cases and also the Dutch cases concerning a prison regime designed to prevent escapes: Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 71, ECHR 2003-II, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 85, 4 February 2003), the measure cannot be considered necessary in the absence of any established security risk (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 117, 19 June 2007).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  IACOV STANCIU v. ROMANIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007; and Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, §§ 56-62, 1 June 2010).

 
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle a pu ainsi observer une série de problèmes récurrents au sujet des prisons de ce pays, dont la surpopulation, le manque d'hygiène et de conditions matérielles appropriées, la mauvaise qualité et la quantité insuffisante de la nourriture, et l'absence de soins médicaux adéquats (voir, parmi d'autres, Becciev c. Moldova, no 9190/03, §§ 41-48, 4 octobre 2005, Holomiov, précité, §§ 113-122, Istratii, précité, §§ 48-59 et 68-72, Modarca, précité, §§ 63-69, Ciorap c. Moldova, no 12066/02, §§ 65-71, 19 juin 2007, Popovici c. Moldova, nos 289/04 et 41194/04, §§ 56-57, 27 novembre 2007, Turcan c. Moldova, no 10809/06, §§ 35-39, 27 novembre 2007, Malai c. Moldova, no 7101/06, §§ 33-35, 13 novembre 2008, Valeriu et Nicolae Rosca c. Moldova, no 41704/02, §§ 78-79, 20 octobre 2009, Gavrilovici c. Moldova, no 25464/05, §§ 42-44, 15 décembre 2009, I.D., précité, §§ 44-46, Oprea c. Moldova, no 38055/06, §§ 39-42, 21 décembre 2010, Rotaru c. Moldova, no 51216/06, §§ 33-42, 15 février 2011, Feraru c. Moldova, no 55792/08, §§ 41-46, 24 janvier 2012, Hadji c. Moldova, nos 32844/07 et 41378/07, §§ 19-20, 14 février 2012, Constantin Modarca c. République de Moldova, no 37829/08, §§ 25-27, 13 novembre 2012, Ciorap c. République de Moldova (no 3), no 32896/07, §§ 35-37, 4 décembre 2012, Mitrofan, précité, §§ 37-41, Ipati, précité, §§ 64-65 ; et Segheti, §§ 30-33).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 24630/10

  LINDSTRÖM AND MÄSSELI v. FINLAND

  As concerns the rules of 18 March 2004, their content is more clear and foreseeable but it is doubtful whether they were made accessible to the applicants (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 103, 19 June 2007).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04

  LAUTARU v. ROMANIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Petrea, cited above, §§ 49-50; Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010 and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 10675/03

  DIMAKOS v. ROMANIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI, and Kokoshkina, § 64, and Petrea, §§ 49-50, judgments cited above).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 30595/09

  ALI v. ROMANIA (No. 2)

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory levels of hygiene (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 98, ECHR 2002-VI ; Petrea v. Romania, no. 4792/03, § 84, 29 April 2008).
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  HADADE v. ROMANIA

  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, 10.07.2012 - 12152/05

  VARTIC v. ROMANIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, § 49, 1 June 2010).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  BADILA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 14262/03

  RACAREANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  TOMA BARBU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR - 63588/17 (anhängig)

  PLATON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 14609/10

  MIRCEA DUMITRESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  RADUCANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9643/03

  GOH v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 19042/06

  CHISTOL v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 246/05

  SMOLEI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 43543/09

  CONSTANTIN TUDOR v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 14521/03

  ABOU AMER v. ROMANIA