Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MKHITARYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-b Violation of P7-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  Nothing suggests that in either case the applicant was allowed any out-of-cell activities that could compensate for this serious lack of space (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 49, ECHR 2006-III; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 141, 28 June 2007, and, by contrast, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  Nothing suggests that in either case the applicant was allowed any out-of-cell activities that could compensate for this serious lack of space (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 49, ECHR 2006-III; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 141, 28 June 2007, and, by contrast, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00

  MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  Nothing suggests that in either case the applicant was allowed any out-of-cell activities that could compensate for this serious lack of space (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 49, ECHR 2006-III; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 141, 28 June 2007, and, by contrast, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).

 
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29787/03

  RIAD ET IDIAB c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  The Court reiterates that it is unacceptable for a person to be detained in conditions in which no provision has been made for meeting his or her basic needs (see, mutatis mutandis, Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 106, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, § 93, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  The Court reiterates that it is unacceptable for a person to be detained in conditions in which no provision has been made for meeting his or her basic needs (see, mutatis mutandis, Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 106, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, § 93, 12 June 2008).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  The Court further reiterates that the guarantees of Article 5 § 3 apply only to detention imposed under Article 5 § 1 (c) (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 75, ECHR 2000-IX).

• OVG Bremen, 23.03.2022 - 1 LB 484/21

  Verfolgung eines einfachen Wehrdienstentziehers i. S. d. § 3a Abs. 2 Nr. 5 AsylG …

  Auch wenn bei der Bewertung, ob Haftbedingungen den Grad einer unmenschlichen oder erniedrigenden Behandlung im Sinne des Art. 3 EMRK erreichen, die Dauer der Haft zu berücksichtigen ist (…EMGR (Große Kammer), Urt. v. 20.10.2016 - 7334/13, BeckRS 2016, 121215, Rn. 98), reichen vorliegend insbesondere in Anbetracht psychischer und physischer Misshandlungen, der Zurückhaltung von Nahrung sowie des unzureichenden Zugangs zu sanitären Einrichtungen bereits wenige Tage einer Inhaftierung, um den Schweregrad einer unmenschlichen und erniedrigenden Behandlung zu erreichen (vgl. EGMR (Dritte Sektion), Urteil vom 02.12.2008 - 22390/05, BeckRS 2008, 144896 Rn. 55).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16

  SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court held, in particular, that the Government had failed to specify to which of the numerous authorities mentioned in Section 13 of the Law (see paragraph 94 above) the applicants were supposed to apply and what specific measures could have been taken by those bodies to provide redress for the applicants' complaints taking into account that the issues raised were of a structural nature (see Kirakosyan v. Armenia, no. 31237/03, §§ 57-58, 2 December 2008; Mkhitaryan v. Armenia, no. 22390/05, § 43, 2 December 2008; and Gaspari v. Armenia, no. 44769/08, § 46, 20 September 2018).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

  SIZAREV v. UKRAINE

  The Court observes that conditions of detention for a comparable and even a much shorter period have been previously found to be incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 (see, for example, Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, where the applicant was detained for twenty-two hours with no food and water or access to a toilet; Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 100-111, 24 January 2008, where the applicants were detained in poor conditions for periods of fifteen and eleven days; and Mkhitaryan v. Armenia, no. 22390/05, § 55, 2 December 2008, where the length of the impugned detention was ten days).