Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAUTARU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Lautaru v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 25867/03

  IAMANDI c. ROUMANIE

  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, 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, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA

  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, 01.06.2010 - 14262/03

  RACAREANU v. ROMANIA

  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, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  ALI v. ROMANIA

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see 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, 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, 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, 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, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

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

  BRANDUSE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 22635/03

  SULEJMANOVIC c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 56664/08

  FLAMÎNZEANU c. ROUMANIE

• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 79857/12

  MIHAI LAURENTIU 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, 20.07.2021 - 39412/19

  POLGAR c. ROUMANIE

  Il fit également référence à une affaire dans laquelle la Cour avait octroyé 16 000 EUR en réparation d'un préjudice moral résultant de mauvaises conditions de détention (Lautaru c. Roumanie, no 13099/04, § 126, 18 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Citing in particular the cases of Di Sarno and Others v. Italy (no. 30765/08, 10 January 2012), orđevic v. Croatia (no. 41526/10, ECHR 2012) and Lautaru v. Romania (no. 13099/04, 18 October 2011), he submitted that the Court had already held that the mere possibility of obtaining financial compensation was not sufficient in itself to afford appropriate redress where applicants were seeking to put a stop to particular conduct.

 
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 29540/08

  GYÖRGYPÁL c. ROUMANIE

  Il renvoie également aux exemples de jurisprudence qu'il aurait présentés devant la Cour dans les affaires Iacov Stanciu (précitée), Cucu (précitée) et Lautaru c. Roumanie (no 13099/04, 18 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 48372/09

  MARIAN TOMA c. ROUMANIE

  Elle rappelle à ce propos avoir déjà jugé, dans des affaires récentes dirigées contre la Roumanie, qu'au vu de la particularité de ce grief la voie indiquée par le Gouvernement ne constituait pas un recours effectif à exercer par les requérants (voir Cucu, précité, § 73, Lautaru c. Roumanie, no 13099/04, §§ 82-84, 18 octobre 2011, et, mutatis mutandis, Iacov Stanciu, précité, §§ 197-198).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59443/12

  REZNIK AND GUZEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of an extreme lack of personal space for detainees (see, for example, Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 143 et seq.; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 88-97, 25 June 2009, which also concerned the conditions of detention in remand prison no. IZ-61/1; and Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, §§ 99-104, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 4140/04

  ROMAN v. ROMANIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention, lack of adequate medical treatment and excessive length of proceedings (see, for example, Riccardi v. Romania, no. 3048/04, 3 April 2012, Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, 18 October 2011, Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, 12 April 2011, Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, 1 June 2010, and Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, ECHR-2009 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 03.02.2015 - 3800/10

  GIURGIU v. ROMANIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, 18 October 2011, Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, 12 April 2011, Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, 1 June 2010, and Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, ECHR-2009 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 63289/12

  LELEA v. ROMANIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, 18 October 2011, Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, § 98, 12 April 2011, Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, 1 June 2010, and Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, ECHR-2009 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 29101/13

  COZIANU c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà jugé, dans des affaires récentes dirigées contre la Roumanie, qu'au vu de la particularité de ce grief il n'y a pas au niveau interne un recours effectif à exercer par les requérants (voir Cucu, précité, § 73, Lautaru c. Roumanie, no 13099/04, §§ 82-84, 18 octobre 2011, et, mutatis mutandis, Iacov Stanciu, précité, §§ 197-198).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 51866/07

  TUTURAS v. ROMANIA