Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.C. v. POLAND

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 25001/07

  STASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  That being so, the Court has consistently interpreted that obligation in such a manner as not to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 189, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 78, 20 October 2011).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  The Court observes that according to its constant case-law the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment administered not only by State agents but also by private individuals (see Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V; J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 64, 17 April 2012; and O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 144, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  That being so, the Court has consistently interpreted that obligation in such a manner as not to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 189, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 78, 20 October 2011).

 
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  TAUTKUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  Such a positive obligation cannot be considered to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, 4 December 2003, ECHR 2003-XII; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 59, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  In the case of prisoners, the Court has stressed that States 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  Such a positive obligation cannot be considered to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, 4 December 2003, ECHR 2003-XII; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 59, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  The Court recalls the authorities" duty under Article 3 to conduct an effective official investigation in response to an arguable claim of ill-treatment (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  The assessment of this minimum is, by nature, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst many other authorities, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161).

• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 58271/10

  A.S. c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà eu l'occasion de souligner que les détenus sont en situation de vulnérabilité et que les autorités ont le devoir de les protéger (Keenan c. Royaume-Uni, no 27229/95, § 91, CEDH 2001-III, D.F. c. Lettonie, no 11160/07, § 83, 29 octobre 2013, et Enache c. Roumanie, no 10662/06, § 49, 1er avril 2014 et, plus récemment, M.C. c. Pologne, no 23692/09, § 88, 3 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 02.05.2023 - 36463/11

  S.P. ANS OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Another important factor in the Court's assessment of the State's compliance with its obligations under Article 3 is whether the prisoner was part of a particularly vulnerable group, for instance because he belongs to a category at a heightened risk of abuse (see Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011, concerning homosexuals; J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012, concerning police collaborators; D.F. v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 81-84, and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015, concerning sexual offenders; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 114-15, 17 January 2013; and Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014, concerning former police officers).
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 76680/17

  D v. LATVIA

  Another important factor in the Court's assessment of the State's compliance with its obligations under Article 3 is whether the prisoner was part of a particularly vulnerable group, for instance because he belongs to a category at a heightened risk of abuse (see Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011, concerning homosexuals; J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012, concerning police collaborators; D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, §§ 81-84, 29 October 2013, and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015, concerning sexual offenders; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 114-15, 17 January 2013, and Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014, concerning former police officers).

 
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 20416/13

  M.P. v. POLAND

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning the obligation to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of treatment infringing Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 316-326, ECHR 2014 (extracts), Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114-123, 28 September 2015, and, in respect of Poland, M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, §§ 102-104, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 56668/12

  KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER v. BULGARIA

  In any event, while it is clear that the authorities have an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect a detainee from inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by other detainees, especially if they have reason to believe that the detainee is particularly vulnerable - for instance because he or she is suffering from a psychological disorder (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, §§ 189-92, 3 June 2003), is of young age (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 86, 10 February 2011), or belongs to a category that is at heightened risk (see Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-70, 27 May 2008 (Serbs convicted of war crimes against Bosniacs and kept, unsegregated, in a prison where about ninety per cent of inmates were Bosniacs); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011 (homosexuals); J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012 (police collaborators); Aleksejeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012 (relatives of prison guards); Starovoitovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 27343/05, §§ 35-38, 27 November 2012 (private security guards); D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 81, 29 October 2013 (sexual offenders); Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014 (police officers); and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015 (persons accused of sexually abusing minors)) - or to believe that the other detainees have an increased propensity to violence (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 57-60, ECHR 2002-II, and Oshurko v. Ukraine, no. 33108/05, § 72, 8 September 2011), there is no evidence - and the applicant has not elaborated on that point either - that in her case the hospital staff knew or ought to have known that she stood a real risk of being assaulted by the other patient in the shower.
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 48724/15

  ILGIZ KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA

  This obligation involves, in particular, the protection of the physical integrity and well-being of persons who are in custody under the exclusive control of the authorities, as well as taking all steps which could reasonably be expected to prevent a real and immediate risk of ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V; Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, §§ 189-90, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts); J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 64, 17 April 2012; and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, §§ 87-88, 3 March 2015).