Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68669) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
- EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (13)
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
Furthermore, in considering whether a treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR 2001-III; Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97
BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
The Court concludes that for many years, namely from 2000 until at least mid-2008, the overcrowding in Polish prisons and remand centres revealed a structural problem consisting of "a practice that is incompatible with the Convention" (see mutatis mutandis Broniowski v. Poland, cited above, §§ 190-191, ECHR 2004-V; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 229-231, ECHR 2006-...; Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V with respect to the Italian length of proceedings cases). - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
The respondent State remains free, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Broniowski v. Poland cited above, §§ 192).
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
In addition, as the applicant's personal space was particularly limited for almost the entire day and night, he had to have his meals inside his overcrowded cell and to shower along with the group of strangers, sometimes as many as twenty-four, and finally, as he had constantly been moved between cells and facilities, the Court considers that those conditions obviously did not allow any elementary privacy and aggravated the applicant's situation (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 99, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005). - EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03
OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005). - EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005). - EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01
BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (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, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
(Valasinas, cited above, § 102; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
- EuGH, 15.10.2019 - C-128/18
Dorobantu - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Polizeiliche und justizielle …
Unter Bezugnahme auf die Urteile des EGMR vom 22. Oktober 2009, 0rchowski/Polen (CE:ECHR:2009:1022JUD001788504), vom 19. März 2013, Bleju?Ÿca/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2013:0319JUD000791010), und vom 10. Juni 2014, Mihai Laurentiu Marin/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2014:0610JUD007985712), nahm das OLG Hamburg eine Gesamtwürdigung der Haftbedingungen in Rumänien vor. - BVerfG, 18.08.2017 - 2 BvR 424/17
Einstweilige Anordnung gegen eine Auslieferung nach Rumänien zum Zwecke der …
Zu dieser Gewährleistung hat die Große Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte eine die bisherige Rechtsprechung vereinheitlichende Entscheidung getroffen und festgestellt, dass die starke Vermutung einer Verletzung von Art. 3 EMRK bestehe, wenn der persönliche Raum des Häftlings in einem Gemeinschaftshaftraum unter 3 m² falle (vgl. Urteil vom 20. Oktober 2016, Mur?ic ./. Kroatien, Beschwerde Nr. 7334/13, § 124; ähnlich bereits zuvor EGMR, Urteil vom 10. Januar 2012, Ananyev u.a. ./. Russland, Beschwerden Nr. 42525/07 und 60800/08 (Piloturteil), NVwZ-RR 2013, 284 ; und EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Oktober 2009, 0rchowski ./. Polen, Beschwerde Nr. 17885/04, § 123). - OLG Hamburg, 03.01.2017 - Ausl 81/16
Zulässigkeit einer Auslieferung nach Rumänien: Prüfung der Haftbedingungen in …
Vor diesem Hintergrund hat der EGMR - trotz Betonung der Notwendigkeit einer Gesamtbetrachtung ("cumulative effects of the conditions") - unter Verweis auf seine Rechtsprechung in der Sache Orchowski v. Polen (Urt. v. 22. Oktober 2009, 1ndividualbeschwerde Nr. 17885/04) einen Konventionsverstoß bejaht und jedenfalls einen individuellen Haftraumplatz von unter drei Quadratmetern als nicht konventionskonform beanstandet (…vgl. z.B. EGMR, Urt. v. 10. Juni 2014, Marin v. Rumänien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 79857/12). - OLG Oldenburg, 27.05.2020 - 1 Ausl 29/18
Unzulässige Auslieferung an die Ukraine; Gerichtliche Prüfpflicht zur Einhaltung …
Um Art. 3 der EMRK zu genügen, ist aber eine jedem Inhaftierten zur Verfügung stehende Grundfläche von mindestens 3 m² zu fordern (so schon EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Oktober 2009, Beschwerde Nr. 17885/04, (...) ./. Polen, Tz. 123; bekräftigt u.a. im Urteil vom 1. Juli 2014, Beschwerde Nr. 46546/12, (...) ./. Rumänien, Tz. 56).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04, 17599/05, 18364/06, 3390/05, 38719/09, 21880/03, 29254/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04, 17599/05, 18364/06, 3390/05, 38719/09, 21880/03, 29254/06 (https://dejure.org/2016,30625)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.09.2016 - 17885/04, 17599/05, 18364/06, 3390/05, 38719/09, 21880/03, 29254/06 (https://dejure.org/2016,30625)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. September 2016 - 17885/04, 17599/05, 18364/06, 3390/05, 38719/09, 21880/03, 29254/06 (https://dejure.org/2016,30625)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,30625) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ORCHOWSKI AND 6 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ORCHOWSKI ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
- EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04, 17599/05, 18364/06, 3390/05, 38719/09, 21880/03, 29254/06
Wird zitiert von ... (15)
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 48558/08
WOJDA v. POLAND
A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing the conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that conditions of their detention were inadequate are set out in the Court's pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively).The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, the pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009 and the leading follow-up decision in the case of Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010).
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 55167/07
MICIUK v. POLAND
A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing the conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that conditions of their detention were inadequate are set out in the Court's pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively).The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, the pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009 and the leading follow-up decision in the case of Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010).
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 35089/09
WYSOCZANSKI v. POLAND
A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing the conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that conditions of their detention were inadequate are set out in the Court's pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively).The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, the pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009 and the leading follow-up decision in the case of Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010).
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2235/02
KLIBISZ v. POLAND
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, the pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, 22 October 2009 and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009 and the leading follow-up decision in the case of Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010). - EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 22926/04
IORDAN PETROV c. BULGARIE
Elle a notamment estimé que dans ces cas-là l'action en dommage et intérêts introduite en vertu de l'article 1, alinéa 1 de la loi sur la responsabilité de l'Etat ne constituait pas une voie de recours effective en raison de son caractère purement compensatoire et que le Gouvernement n'avait démontré l'existence d'aucun recours interne permettant aux détenus d'obtenir une amélioration de leurs conditions matérielles de détention (Iliev et autres c. Bulgarie, précité, §§ 68 et 69 ; Radkov c. Bulgarie (no 2), précité, §§ 53-55; voir également Orchowski c. Pologne, no 17885/04, § 109, CEDH 2009-... ; Norbert Sikorski c. Pologne, no 17599/05, § 116, 22 octobre 2009 ). - EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 15476/02
BYSTROWSKI v. POLAND
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 on account of overcrowding and inadequate detention conditions (see, for example, the pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, ECHR 2009-... (extracts) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009 and the leading follow-up decision in the case of Latak v. Poland (dec.), no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010) and complaints about the monitoring of a detainee's correspondence (see among many others Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, §§ 65-66, 2 December 2003). - EGMR - 34846/08 (anhängig)
[FRE]
Les requérants avaient-ils à leur disposition, comme l'exige l'article 13 de la Convention, des recours internes effectifs au travers desquels ils auraient pu formuler leurs griefs de méconnaissance de l'article 3 ? En particulier, une action en dommages et intérêts en vertu de l'article 1 de la loi sur la responsabilité de l'Etat, constituait-elle un recours effectif au sens de cette disposition pour les griefs relatifs aux conditions de détention et à l'absence alléguée de soins médicaux appropriés en prison (voir Kirilov c. Bulgarie, no 15158/02, §§ 42-48, 22 mai 2008 et Hristov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 36794/03, 18 mars 2008 vus à la lumière des arrêts Orchowski c. Pologne, no 17885/04, § 109, CEDH 2009-..., Norbert Sikorski c. Pologne, no 17599/05, § 116, 22 octobre 2009, Iliev et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 4473/02 et 34138/04, §§ 53-57, 10 février 2011 et Radkov c. Bulgarie (no 2), no 18382/05, § 53-55, 10 février 2011) ? Les requérants disposaient-ils de recours non compensatoires pour obtenir l'amélioration de leurs conditions de détention ?. - EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 50494/12
YENGO c. FRANCE
La Cour a déjà estimé que les recours devant une autorité administrative en vue de contester des conditions de détention pouvaient passer pour satisfaire aux exigences de cette disposition (Norbert Sikorski c. Pologne, no 17599/05, § 111, 22 octobre 2009; Orchowski c. Pologne, n 17885/04, § 107, 22 octobre 2009). - EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 7910/10
BLEJUSCA c. ROUMANIE
The Court notes that even at the occupancy rate put forward by the Government, the applicant's living space seems to have been less than three square metres, which falls short of the standards imposed by the case-law (see Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 122, ECHR 2009... (extracts)). - EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 18120/10 In den Piloturteilen des Gerichtshofs in den Rechtssachen Orchowski ./. Polen (Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17885/04) und Norbert Sikorski ./. Polen (Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17599/05) vom 22. Oktober 2009 (siehe Rdnrn. 75 85 bzw. Rdnrn. 45-88) findet sich eine detaillierte Beschreibung des einschlägigen innerstaatlichen Rechts und der einschlägigen innerstaatlichen Praxis bezüglich der allgemeinen Vorschriften über die Haftbedingungen in Polen sowie der innerstaatlichen Rechtsbehelfe, die Häftlingen zur Verfügung stehen, um geltend zu machen, dass die Bedingungen ihrer Haft unangemessen seien.
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 18382/05
RADKOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 53339/09
SIERMINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 35328/06
RYSZARD MAREK ZAJAC v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 36610/04
ZESLAWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 73620/10
PAWLAK v. POLAND