Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADUCANU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (26)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 14262/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  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, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, 7 April 2009; 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).

  His repeated requests for temporary release do not satisfy these conditions (see Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, § 41, 1 June 2010).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention, 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, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention, 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, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  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 are 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, 07.04.2009 - 6586/03

  BRANDUSE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  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, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, 7 April 2009; 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, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  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, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, 7 April 2009; 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, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  The Court notes that it has already examined the application of the six-month rule in similar cases (see Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 35, 26 June 2008).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  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, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, 7 April 2009; 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, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  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, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, 7 April 2009; 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, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  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 Lautaru, cited above, § 96).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  ALI v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 34619/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 22661/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03

  PETREA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 22088/04

  BRAGADIREANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 32146/05

  EUGENIA LAZAR c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 25763/03

  MACIUCA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 12535/04

  ARTIMENCO c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 3036/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 12934/02

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 25867/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 6936/03

  STAN c. ROUMANIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  (c) in the application of the six-month rule (see Allan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48539/99, 28 August 2001; Zervakis v. Greece (dec.), no. 64321/01, 17 October 2002; Houfová v. the Czech Republic (no. 1), no. 58177/00, §§ 29-34, 15 June 2004; Sâmbata Bihor Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania (dec.), no. 48107/99, 25 May 2004; Božinovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 68368/01, 1 February 2005; Adam and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 290/03, 1 September 2005; Marchiani v. France (dec.), no. 30392/03, 24 January 2006; and Răducanu v. Romania, no. 17187/05, §§ 56-60, 12 June 2012);.
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 20307/02

  ALI CONTRE LA ROUMANIE ET 120 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  17187/05.
• EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 37747/08

  [FRE]

  áƒ-ემáƒ�áƒ�ღნიშნული გáƒ�რემáƒ�ებებიáƒ. მხედველáƒ�ბáƒ�ში მიღებითáƒ� დáƒ� იმიáƒ. გáƒ�თვáƒ�ლიáƒ.áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ”ბით, რáƒ�მ მáƒ�მჩივáƒ�ნი áƒ�რáƒ�áƒ.áƒ�დეáƒ. დáƒ�ბრუნებულáƒ� თბილიáƒ.იáƒ. № 5 áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.ჯელáƒ�ღáƒ.რულებიáƒ. დáƒ�áƒáƒ”áƒ.ებულებáƒ�ში 2007 áƒáƒšáƒ˜áƒ. 23 ივნიáƒ.იáƒ. შემდეგ (იხ., a contrario, რáƒ�დუკáƒ�ნუ რუმინეთიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Răducanu v. Romania), № 17187/05, § 73, 12 ივნიáƒ.ი 2012), áƒ.áƒ�áƒ.áƒ�მáƒ�რთლáƒ�áƒ. áƒ�რშეუძლიáƒ� დáƒ�áƒ�áƒ.კვნáƒ�áƒ., რáƒ�მ áƒ�დგილი ჰქáƒ�ნდáƒ� გáƒ�ნგრძáƒ�ბáƒ�დ áƒ.იტუáƒ�ციáƒ�áƒ.
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 42281/10

  [ENG]

  As the applicant did not return to Tbilisi Prison no. 5 after 3 June 2006 (see, a contrario, Răducanu v. Romania, no. 17187/05, § 73, 12 June 2012), the Court cannot conclude that there was a continuous situation.