Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOMA BARBU v. ROMANIA

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Toma Barbu v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TOMA BARBU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  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 execution of the measure of detention 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, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  In previous cases the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  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 execution of the measure of detention 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, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue, 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, cited above, §§ 70-72) or the lack of basic privacy in the prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue, 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, cited above, §§ 70-72) or the lack of basic privacy in the prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  ALI v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  In previous cases the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue, 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, cited above, §§ 70-72) or the lack of basic privacy in the prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue, 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, cited above, §§ 70-72) or the lack of basic privacy in the prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 14262/03

  RACAREANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  In previous cases the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue, 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, cited above, §§ 70-72) or the lack of basic privacy in the prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).

• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 51318/12

  CONSTANTIN AURELIAN BURLACU c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention en raison principalement du manque d'espace individuel suffisant, d'absence d'hygiène ou de ventilation ou éclairage inadéquats dans les locaux de la direction générale de la police de Bucarest (Ogica c. Roumanie, no 24708/03, §§ 42 et suiv., 27 mai 2010, et Casuneanu c. Roumanie, no 22018/10, §§ 60 et suiv., 16 avril 2013) et dans la prison de Rahova (Dimakos c. Roumanie, no 10675/03, §§ 46 et suiv., 6 juillet 2010, Micu c. Roumanie, no 29883/06, §§ 86-87, 8 février 2011 et Flamînzeanu c. Roumanie, no 56664/08, §§ 89-91, 12 avril 2011, et Toma Barbu c. Roumanie, no 19730/10, §§ 56 et suiv., 30 juillet 2013).
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 79857/12

  MIHAI LAURENTIU MARIN v. ROMANIA

  The Court further points out that these figures were even lower in reality, taking into account the fact that the cells also contained the detainees" beds and other items of furniture (see Toma Barbu v. Romania, no. 19730/10, § 64, 30 July 2013, and Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, § 99, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 48372/09

  MARIAN TOMA c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà conclu à plusieurs reprises à l'égard de la Roumanie à la violation de l'article 3 en raison des conditions de détention inappropriées, notamment du surpeuplement et accessoirement des conditions d'hygiène, régnant dans les mêmes prisons que celles dans lesquelles l'intéressé a été incarcéré et à des périodes proches de celles de sa détention (voir, parmi d'autres, Toma Barbu c. Roumanie, no 19730/10, § 70, 30 juillet 2013, Banu c. Roumanie, no 60732/09, §§ 36-37, 11 décembre 2012, Györgypál c. Roumanie, no 29540/08, § 73, 26 mars 2013, Scarlat c. Roumanie, nos 68492/10 et 68786/11, § 57, 23 juillet 2013, Flamînzeanu c. Roumanie, no 56664/08, § 92, 12 avril 2011, Badila c. Roumanie, no 31725/04, § 76, 4 octobre 2011, et Fane Ciobanu c. Roumanie, no 27240/03, §§ 72-73, 11 octobre 2011).

 
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 77638/12

  MANEA c. ROUMANIE

  Dans ces conditions, l'examen que la Cour fera sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention se limitera à la seule prison de Bacau (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ciuca c. Roumanie, no 34485/09, § 39, 5 juin 2012, Toma Barbu c. Roumanie, no 19730/10, § 62, 30 juillet 2013, et Tirean c. Roumanie, no 47603/10, § 38, 28 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 26089/13

  ADRIAN RADU c. ROUMANIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour examinera l'ensemble de la période pendant laquelle le requérant y a été incarcéré, bien qu'il ait été transféré pour de courtes périodes à l'hôpital ou dans une autre prison afin de lui permettre de participer aux audiences des tribunaux nationaux (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ciuca c. Roumanie, no 34485/09, § 39, 5 juin 2012, Toma Barbu c. Roumanie, no 19730/10, § 62, 30 juillet 2013, et Tirean c. Roumanie, no 47603/10, § 38, 28 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 19320/07

  BUTIUC AND DUMITROF v. ROMANIA

  Taking this finding into account, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remaining issues of the applicant's complaint concerning the material conditions of detention (see Toma Barbu v. Romania, no. 19730/10, § 71, 30 July 2013).