Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AUSTRIANU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Austrianu v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (24)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  At the same time, it does not protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief (see, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 78, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity 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, and Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, § 62, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  The Court has consistently held that Article 14 prohibits a discriminatory difference in treatment between persons in analogous or relevantly similar positions without a legitimate aim or in the absence of a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 29, ECHR 1999-I, and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03

  RIVIERE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity 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, and Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, § 62, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03

  PETREA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  In the case of Petrea v. Romania, (no. 4792/03, 29 April 2008), the Court concluded that before the entry into force of Ordinance no. 56/2003, on 27 June 2003, there was no effective remedy for situations such as the one complained of by the applicant.
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII), or to determine the appropriate sentence of an offender, those being matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national criminal courts.
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 2577/02

  FOCIAC c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  In cases such as the present one, which necessitate actions by a debtor who is a private person, the State, as the depository of public authority, has to act diligently in order to assist a creditor with the execution of a judgment (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  The Court has consistently held that Article 14 prohibits a discriminatory difference in treatment between persons in analogous or relevantly similar positions without a legitimate aim or in the absence of a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 29, ECHR 1999-I, and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 10675/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 73970/01

  SACALEANU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 35021/05

  KOVALKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.06.2016 - 46430/99

  BARBU ANGHELESCU (N° 1) ET 35 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 28433/02

  CAMDERELI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 25230/03

  GEORGESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 43247/02

  MELINTE c. ROUMANIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Having examined all the materials in its possession, including the medical reports obtained by the first applicant after his release, the Court finds no basis on which to conclude that the medical assistance provided to him during his detention was inadequate, that during that period his state of health deteriorated significantly beyond the natural course of his pre-existing medical condition, or that he suffered extensively as a result of insufficient medical care (see, mutatis mutandis, Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, §§ 78-79, 15 November 2007, and Austrianu v. Romania, no. 16117/02, § 92, 12 February 2013).
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 67258/13

  MYUMYUN c. BULGARIE

  However, in the light of its rulings in similar cases (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 124; Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, § 49, 4 November 2010; Austrianu v. Romania, no. 16117/02, §§ 73-74, 12 February 2013; and Doiciu v. Romania, no. 1454/09, §§ 27 and 68-69, 5 May 2015, in all of which mere fines were found inadequate even in relation to inhuman and degrading treatment), the Court finds that these penalties were manifestly disproportionate to the seriousness of the officers' act.
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 1443/10

  AMARANDEI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  A de nombreuses occasions, la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention en raison du manque d'indépendance du parquet militaire (voir Barbu Anghelescu c. Roumanie, no 46430/99, § 67, 5 octobre 2004 ; Dumitru Popescu c. Roumanie (no 1), no 49234/99, § 75, 26 avril 2007; Melinte c. Roumanie, no 43247/02, § 27, 9 novembre 2006; Soare et autres c. Roumanie, no 24329/02, § 169, 22 février 2011 ; Austrianu c. Roumanie, no 16117/02, § 70, 12 février 2013 et, plus récemment, Birgean c. Roumanie, no 3626/10, § 72 14 janvier 2014).

• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 57365/12

  ANTON c. ROUMANIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu à la violation du volet procédural des articles 2 et 3 de la Convention dans un certain nombre d'affaires similaires dirigées contre la Roumanie (Cucu, précité, §§ 93-99, Petruş Iacob c. Roumanie, no 13524/05, §§ 28-52, 4 décembre 2012, et Austrianu c. Roumanie, no 16117/02, §§ 56-75, 12 février 2013).
• EGMR, 05.05.2015 - 1454/09

  [FRE]

  Ces éléments sont essentiels si l'on veut préserver l'effet dissuasif du système judiciaire en place et le rôle qu'il est censé avoir dans la prévention des atteintes à l'interdiction des mauvais traitements (Ali et Ayşe Duran c. Turquie, no 42942/02, § 62, 8 avril 2008 ; Austrianu c. Roumanie, no 16117/02, § 74, 12 février 2013 ; Çamdereli c. Turquie, no 28433/02, § 38, 17 juillet 2008, et, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova et Velitchkova, précité, §§ 60 et suiv.).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 3626/10

  [FRE]

  Elle a constaté que lesdits procureurs militaires étaient, tout comme les agents visés par les enquêtes, des officiers militaires d'active, avec des grades militaires, qu'ils faisaient partie de la structure militaire, fondée sur le principe de la subordination hiérarchique, et qu'ils devaient répondre de la violation des règles de la discipline militaire (voir Barbu Anghelescu c. Roumanie, no 46430/99, § 67, 5 octobre 2004 ; Dumitru Popescu c. Roumanie (no 1), no 49234/99, § 75, 26 avril 2007 ; Melinte c. Roumanie, no 43247/02, § 27, 9 novembre 2006 ; Soare et autres, précité, § 169 et Austrianu c. Roumanie, no 16117/02, § 70, 12 février 2013).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 42344/07

  PREDICA CONTRE LA ROUMANIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  16117/02.
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 19928/17

  BARANOSCHI c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison du manque d'indépendance des procureurs militaires chargés de la conduite d'enquêtes pénales ouvertes sur des allégations de mauvais traitements dirigées contre des agents de l'État (voir, par exemple, Barbu Anghelescu c. Roumanie, no 46430/99, § 67, 5 octobre 2004, Dumitru Popescu c. Roumanie (no 1), no 49234/99, § 75, 26 avril 2007, Melinte c. Roumanie, no 43247/02, § 27, 9 novembre 2006, Soare et autres, précité, § 169, et Austrianu c. Roumanie, no 16117/02, § 70, 12 février 2013).
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 4243/09

  ÖZEL v. TURKEY

  Having examined all the materials in its possession, the Court finds no basis to conclude that the medical assistance provided to the applicant while he was detained at the Diyarbakır High Security Prison was inadequate, that during this period his state of health deteriorated significantly beyond the natural course of his medical condition, or that he suffered extensively as a result of insufficient medical care (see, mutatis mutandis, Grishin, cited above, §§ 78-79, 15 November 2007; and Austrianu v. Romania, no. 16117/02, § 92, 12 February 2013).