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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• 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 - 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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  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, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY

  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, 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, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  Firstly, important factors for an effective investigation, viewed as a gauge of the authorities" determination to identify and prosecute those responsible, are its promptness (see, inter alia, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 78-79, ECHR 1999-V, and Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 59, 20 December 2007) and its expedition (see Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 89, 15 May 2008).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  LARKOS c. CHYPRE

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  Firstly, important factors for an effective investigation, viewed as a gauge of the authorities" determination to identify and prosecute those responsible, are its promptness (see, inter alia, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 78-79, ECHR 1999-V, and Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 59, 20 December 2007) and its expedition (see Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 89, 15 May 2008).
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  Firstly, important factors for an effective investigation, viewed as a gauge of the authorities" determination to identify and prosecute those responsible, are its promptness (see, inter alia, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 78-79, ECHR 1999-V, and Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 59, 20 December 2007) and its expedition (see Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 89, 15 May 2008).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

• 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, Petrus 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

  DOICIU c. ROUMANIE

  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 Ayse 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

  BIRGEAN c. ROUMANIE

  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, 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).