Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DANILCZUK v. CYPRUS

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DANILCZUK v. CYPRUS

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  The Government relied, in particular, on the Court's judgments in Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 98, 10 January 2012); Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, § 111, 20 October 2011) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05, § 116, 22 October 2009).

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of the knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Ananyev and Others, v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 98, 10 January 2012, § 72).

  It is a general Convention principle that, in contrast to an objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by the respondent Government, the Court cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 71, 10 January 2012).

• EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 65391/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  In view of the foregoing, I consider that this part of the application has not been properly substantiated by the applicant (see, inter alia, Ustyugov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 251/04, 1 September 2015; Ildani v. Georgia, no. 65391/09, § 27, 23 April 2013; and Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009).

  In view of the foregoing, we would humbly conclude that this part of the application has not been properly and sufficiently substantiated by the applicant (see, inter alia, Ustyugov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 251/04, 1 September 2015; Ildani v. Georgia, no. 65391/09, § 27, 23 April 2013; and Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009).

• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 11215/10

  DOLGOV AND SILAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  m, constituted a significant change in his conditions of detention (see Bouros and Others v. Greece, nos. 51653/12 and 4 others, §§ 69 and 73, 12 March 2015; see also Dolgov and Silayev v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], nos.11215/10 and 55068/12, § 21, 4 October 2016).

  m, constituted a significant change in the applicant's conditions of detention (see Bouros and Others v. Greece, nos. 51653/12 and 4 others, §§ 69 and 73, 12 March 2015; see also Dolgov and Silayev v. Russia (dec.) nos.11215/10 and 55068/12, § 21, 4 October 2016).

• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 51653/12

  BOUROS c. GRÈCE et 11 autres affaires

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  m, constituted a significant change in his conditions of detention (see Bouros and Others v. Greece, nos. 51653/12 and 4 others, §§ 69 and 73, 12 March 2015; see also Dolgov and Silayev v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], nos.11215/10 and 55068/12, § 21, 4 October 2016).

  m, constituted a significant change in the applicant's conditions of detention (see Bouros and Others v. Greece, nos. 51653/12 and 4 others, §§ 69 and 73, 12 March 2015; see also Dolgov and Silayev v. Russia (dec.) nos.11215/10 and 55068/12, § 21, 4 October 2016).

• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 251/04

  USTYUGOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  In view of the foregoing, I consider that this part of the application has not been properly substantiated by the applicant (see, inter alia, Ustyugov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 251/04, 1 September 2015; Ildani v. Georgia, no. 65391/09, § 27, 23 April 2013; and Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009).

  In view of the foregoing, we would humbly conclude that this part of the application has not been properly and sufficiently substantiated by the applicant (see, inter alia, Ustyugov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 251/04, 1 September 2015; Ildani v. Georgia, no. 65391/09, § 27, 23 April 2013; and Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009).

• EGMR, 10.09.2009 - 15010/04

  SHKURENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  In view of the foregoing, I consider that this part of the application has not been properly substantiated by the applicant (see, inter alia, Ustyugov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 251/04, 1 September 2015; Ildani v. Georgia, no. 65391/09, § 27, 23 April 2013; and Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009).

  In view of the foregoing, we would humbly conclude that this part of the application has not been properly and sufficiently substantiated by the applicant (see, inter alia, Ustyugov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 251/04, 1 September 2015; Ildani v. Georgia, no. 65391/09, § 27, 23 April 2013; and Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009).

• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  The Court refers to the principles summarised in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (for a summary of the relevant general principles see the recent Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ §§ 96-141, ECHR 2016).

  I therefore accept that the space afforded to the applicant in Block 2A did not fall under the minimum requirements under Article 3 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, ECHR 2016).

• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  The existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3. Indeed, the special importance attached by the Convention to this provision requires, in the Court's view, the States parties to establish, over and above a compensatory remedy, an effective mechanism in order to put an end to such treatment rapidly (see Story and Others v. Malta, nos. 56854/13 and 2 others, § 73, 29 October 2015 with further references).

  56854/13 and 2 others, §§ 107-129, 29 October 2015, with further references).

• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  DANILOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  Nevertheless, applicants in such cases may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and provide - to the greatest possible extent - some evidence in support of their complaints (see, amongst many authorities, Artur Parkhomenko v. Ukraine, no. 40464/05, § 60, 16 February 2017, and Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 78, 13 March 2014).

  Nevertheless, in such cases applicants may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and provide - to the greatest possible extent - some evidence in support of their complaints (see, amongst many authorities, Artur Parkhomenko v. Ukraine, no. 40464/05, § 60, 16 February 2017; Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 78, 13 March 2014; and Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/05, § 59, 20 October 2011).

• EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 40464/05

  ARTUR PARKHOMENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  Nevertheless, applicants in such cases may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and provide - to the greatest possible extent - some evidence in support of their complaints (see, amongst many authorities, Artur Parkhomenko v. Ukraine, no. 40464/05, § 60, 16 February 2017, and Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 78, 13 March 2014).

  Nevertheless, in such cases applicants may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and provide - to the greatest possible extent - some evidence in support of their complaints (see, amongst many authorities, Artur Parkhomenko v. Ukraine, no. 40464/05, § 60, 16 February 2017; Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 78, 13 March 2014; and Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/05, § 59, 20 October 2011).

• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17599/05

  NORBERT SIKORSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 141/07

  WEGERA c. POLOGNE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 37139/13

  MONIR LOTFY v. CYPRUS

  The relevant provisions of this Law are set out in Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 18-20, 3 April 2018.

  Accordingly, to the extent that the Government referred to a civil action under Law no. 163(I)/2005, the Court has already found that this constitutes a purely compensatory remedy which does not provide a way to improve the conditions of detention of the person concerned and thus lacks the preventive element required (see Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 39-41, 3 April 2018).

• EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 4743/21

  Russland wegen Nawalny-Inhaftierung verurteilt: "Muster der Missachtung von …

  70329/12 and 5 others, §§ 22-25, 27 June 2017; and, compare and contrast, Sinan Işık v. Turkey, no. 21924/05, §§ 24 and 36, ECHR 2010; Štefančič v. Slovenia, no. 18027/05, § 35, 25 October 2012; Osipkovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 39210/07, § 46, 4 May 2017; Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 38 and 53, 3 April 2018; and Bacaksız v. Turkey, no. 24245/09, §§ 45 and 50, 10 December 2019).
• EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 57185/17

  O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  The Court has previously examined, under Article 3 of the Convention, complaints concerning applicants who were obliged to relieve themselves in the cells where they were detained without a toilet (see Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, § 59, 3 April 2018), or who were unable to use the toilet in private (see Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 60, 6 November 2012), and found that such circumstances, taken together with other factors, amounted to degrading treatment.

• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 36199/15

  ABDILLA v. MALTA

  Further, he failed to refer to any repercussion which ensued as a result of the defective buzzer and this thirty minute delay for assistance on one occasion, nor has the applicant pointed out to any CPT report commenting on such a repeated practice (contrast Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 57 and 59, 3 April 2018, where the practice of switching off cell bells during the night, which had been commented on by the CPT, had resulted in inmates not having access to toilets during those hours).
• EGMR - 30430/25 (anhängig)

  K.P. v. CYPRUS

  Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in relation to his complaint under Article 3 concerning the conditions of his detention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 97, 10 January 2012 and Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 39-47, 3 April 2018)?.
• EGMR, 13.09.2022 - 25652/19

  DENYALI AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  The Supreme Court thus confirmed the existence of an obligation to award general damages for breaches of the fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, even when the violation did not constitute a tort in civil law (see Aresteidou and Aresti v. Cyprus (dec.) [Committee], no. 25364/15, § 6, 14 December 2021, Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 23-24, 3 April 2018, and Shacolas v. Cyprus, no. 47119/99, § 82, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR - 37743/25 (anhängig)

  GERASIMOU v. CYPRUS

  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 97, 10 January 2012 and Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 39-47, 3 April 2018)?.
• EGMR - 14022/26 (anhängig)

  GERASIMOU v. CYPRUS

  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 97, 10 January 2012 and Danilczuk v. Cyprus, no. 21318/12, §§ 39-47, 3 April 2018)?.