Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PENARANDA SOTO v. MALTA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PE?‡ARANDA SOTO v. MALTA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14
• EGMR, 24.04.2019 - 16680/14

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  According to the Court's case-law, although the opening of a letter from a lawyer may be permitted - if the prison authorities have reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure and when suitable guarantees are provided - no compelling reasons have been found to exist for the opening of letters to the Convention organs (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§ 48 and 62, Series A no. 233, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001 III).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  Regarding injuries, a six-day delay in treating a broken rib was found to be a violation of Article 3 (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, no. 17549/90, § 80, Commission decision of 8 July 1993, Decisions and Reports (DR)).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  According to the Court's case-law, although the opening of a letter from a lawyer may be permitted - if the prison authorities have reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure and when suitable guarantees are provided - no compelling reasons have been found to exist for the opening of letters to the Convention organs (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§ 48 and 62, Series A no. 233, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001 III).

• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  What is decisive from the point of view of that provision is whether the suffering resulting from delayed treatment reached the minimum level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 84-87, 4 October 2005, Paladi, cited above, § 81, and Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 121, 29 November 2007).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 2447/05

  CARA-DAMIANI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  However, this does not mean that each detainee must be guaranteed the same medical treatment as is available in the best health establishments outside the prison facilities (see Cara-Damiani v. Italy, no. 2447/05, § 66, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 71645/13

  YANEZ PINON v. MALTA and 2 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  The present opinion should be read in conjunction with our opinion in Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta (nos. 71645/13, 7143/14 and 20342/15, delivered on the same date) in so far as it concerns the conditions of detention in the Maltese prison.
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 70787/01

  RADUCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  As in Răducu v. Romania (no. 70787/01, § 59-62, 21 April 2009), the Court took into account the good quality of the medical treatment he subsequently received and which stabilised his condition.
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  The applicant's release or transfer to a different type of detention regime, both within and outside the facility, would put an end to the "continuing situation" (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 78, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010; Khvichia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009; Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; and Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004), or if they manifestly lacked any real purpose (see Jovanović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 40348/08, 7 March 2014), or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Řehák, cited above) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010; Khvichia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009; Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006; and Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004), or if they manifestly lacked any real purpose (see Jovanović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 40348/08, 7 March 2014), or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Řehák, cited above) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY v. MALTA
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 43985/13

  ABDI AHMED AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 26446/06

  KHVICHIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2012 - 8968/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 44328/05

  PIRTSKHALAISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.03.2014 - 40348/08

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 36199/15

  ABDILLA v. MALTA

  Some of those issues were also dealt with in Peňaranda Soto v. Malta, no. 16680/14, § 71, 19 December 2017).

  We cannot ignore the fact that the Court has already heard similar complaints concerning the conditions of detention in the same facility in Malta, namely in the cases of Story and Others v. Malta (nos. 56854/13, 57005/13 and 57043/13, 29 October 2015), Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta (nos. 71645/13, 7143/14 and 20342/15, 19 December 2017), and Peñaranda Soto v. Malta (no. 16680/14, 19 December 2017), and concluded that they did not amount to degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. Given the similarity of the complaints in the above-mentioned cases and the present one, we believe that integrity dictates that the Court treat them in the same way.

  I dissent for the same reasons as in the separate opinions appended to Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta (nos. 71645/13 and 2 others, 19 December 2017) and Penaranda Soto v. Malta (no. 16680/14, 19 December 2017).

• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 25218/15

  RUIZ PENA AND PEREZ OBERGHT v. MALTA

  Some of those issues were also dealt with in Peňaranda Soto v. Malta (no. 16680/14, § 71, 19 December 2017).

  Accordingly, we cannot help but take into account the fact that the Court recently dealt with similar complaints concerning the conditions of detention of prisoners in the same facility in Malta in the cases of Story and Others v. Malta (nos. 56854/13, 57005/13 and 57043/13, 29 October 2015), Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta (nos. 71645/13, 7143/14 and 20342/15, 19 December 2017) and Peñaranda Soto v. Malta (no. 16680/14, 19 December 2017).

  I dissent for the same reasons as in the separate opinions appended to Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta (nos. 71645/13 and 2 others, 19 December 2017) and Penaranda Soto v. Malta (no. 16680/14, 19 December 2017).

• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  GAFA v. MALTA

  There is no doubt that the applicant is still in contact with his legal representative and that he still wishes to pursue his application, as is evidenced by his submissions in the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Peňaranda Soto v. Malta, no. 16680/14, § 32, 19 December 2017; and, a contrario, V.M. and Others v. Belgium (striking out) [GC], no. 60125/11, § 40, 17 November 2016).