Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55477
EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55477)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.10.2011 - 13099/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55477)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Oktober 2011 - 13099/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55477)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55477) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (31)Zitiert selbst (26)

  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 25867/03

    [FRE]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    In this respect, it notes that in recent applications lodged against Romania and concerning similar complaints it has already found that, given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the legal actions suggested by the Government, including a general tort law action, do not constitute effective remedies (see Petrea, cited above, § 37; Eugen Gabriel Radu v. Romania, no. 3036/04, § 23, 13 October 2009; Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, § 49, 1 June 2010; Cucolas v. Romania, no. 17044/03, § 67, 26 October 2010; Ogica v. Romania, no. 24708/03, § 35, 27 May 2010; and Dimakos v. Romania, no. 10675/03, § 38, 6 July 2010).

    m per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation, lighting or appropriate hygiene conditions (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III; Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, § 98, 12 April 2011, not final and Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, §§ 59-61, 1 June 2010), or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 2967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 007; Valasinas, cited above, § 04; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 847/02, §§ 06 and 107, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005 and Iamandi, cited above, § 61).

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    Under Article 3 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, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    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, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    m per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation, lighting or appropriate hygiene conditions (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III; Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, § 98, 12 April 2011, not final and Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, §§ 59-61, 1 June 2010), or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 2967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 007; Valasinas, cited above, § 04; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 847/02, §§ 06 and 107, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005 and Iamandi, cited above, § 61).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    Under Article 3 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, 07.04.2009 - 6586/03

    BRANDUSE c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    m of personal space, the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 50-51, 21 June 2007 and Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, CEDH 2009 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

    LIND v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    m of personal space, the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 50-51, 21 June 2007 and Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, CEDH 2009 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

    KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    m of personal space, the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 50-51, 21 June 2007 and Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, CEDH 2009 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

    OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    m per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation, lighting or appropriate hygiene conditions (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III; Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, § 98, 12 April 2011, not final and Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, §§ 59-61, 1 June 2010), or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 2967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 007; Valasinas, cited above, § 04; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 847/02, §§ 06 and 107, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005 and Iamandi, cited above, § 61).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

    BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04
    m per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation, lighting or appropriate hygiene conditions (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III; Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, § 98, 12 April 2011, not final and Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, §§ 59-61, 1 June 2010), or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 2967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 007; Valasinas, cited above, § 04; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 847/02, §§ 06 and 107, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005 and Iamandi, cited above, § 61).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

    CIORAP v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 22635/03

    SULEJMANOVIC c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 25763/03

    MACIUCA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

    ALI v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 56664/08

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 14262/03

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03

    PETREA v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 22088/04

    BRAGADIREANU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 12535/04

    ARTIMENCO c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 3036/04

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 12934/02

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 17044/03

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 24708/03

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 10675/03

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 14249/07

    LAZAR v. ROMANIA

    A failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 59, 28 May 2009, and Lăutaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, § 96, 18 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 79857/12

    MARIN v. ROMANIA

    In this regard, it notes that in recent applications lodged against Romania concerning similar complaints it has already found that, given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the legal avenues suggested by the Government do not constitute an effective remedy (see Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, § 85, 18 October 2011; Leontiuc v. Romania no. 44302/10, § 50, 4 December 2012; and Necula v. Romania, no. 33003/11, §§ 32-39, 18 February 2014 (not final)).

    The Court further points out that these figures were even lower in reality, taking into account the fact that the cells also contained the detainees" beds and other items of furniture (see Toma Barbu v. Romania, no. 19730/10, § 64, 30 July 2013, and Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, § 99, 18 October 2011).

  • EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

    GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

    Citant notamment les affaires Di Sarno et autres c. Italie (no 30765/08, 10 janvier 2012), orÄ‘evic c. Croatie (no 41526/10, CEDH 2012) et Lautaru c. Roumanie (no 13099/04, 18 octobre 2011), il fait valoir que la Cour a déjà jugé que la simple possibilité d'obtenir une réparation financière ne suffisait pas, à elle seule, à offrir un redressement approprié lorsqu'il était demandé qu'il soit mis fin à un comportement.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht