Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CSÜLLÖG v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13+3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).

  Subject to compliance with the requirements of the Convention, the Contracting States are afforded - as the Court has held on many previous occasions - some discretion as to the manner in which they provide the relief required by Article 13 and conform to their Convention obligation under that provision (see mutatis mutandis Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 154, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  The prohibition of contacts with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (see, among others, Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V).

  Nor does the Court find any element in the case file suggesting that the dangerousness of the applicant - although he was convicted of conspiracy to murder - can be compared to that of mafia prisoners (compare and contrast Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  Having found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 38 above), the Court is satisfied that the applicant has an "arguable claim" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates in this regard that solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation is likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in the deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities (see Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, § 30, 7 June 2011).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  These arrangements, intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §§ 80-82 and 138; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X, §§ 42-54; Labita, cited above, §§ 103-109; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, 21 July 2005, § 78; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31 and 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
• EGMR, 01.09.2026 - 51829/21

  D.T. v. GREECE

  Firstly, while a prosecutor can, in principle, be considered to be independent in examining a complaint regarding conditions of detention (see Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, § 48, 7 June 2011), the supervising prosecutor in the Greek legal order is actively involved in the administration of the supervised prison (see Article 567 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 7 of Ministerial Decision no. 58819/2003 in paragraphs 21-22 above).

• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  In that light and given the limited periods at issue, these factors on their own do not justify a conclusion that the applicant was held in conditions in breach of Article 3 (compare, mutatis mutandis, Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, § 101, 26 November 2015, and contrast, for example, the conditions applicable to an applicant for a period of eleven months, for protective purposes, during his pre-trial detention in X v. Turkey, no. 24626/09, §§ 36-45, 9 October 2012, or those in Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, §§ 33-38, 7 June 2011, and Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, § 82, 11 March 2004, which concerned periods of two or three years).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08

  HORYCH v. POLAND

  These arrangements, intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §§ 80-82 and 138; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X, §§ 42-54; Labita, cited above, §§ 103-109; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, 21 July 2005, § 78; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31 and 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  A.L. (X.W.) v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the type of solitary confinement to which the applicant was subjected, without appropriate mental or physical stimulation, was likely to have had a damaging effects on him, resulting in the deterioration of both his mental faculties and his social skills (see Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, § 30, 7 June 2011).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 24.03.2021 - C-845/19

  Okrazhna prokuratura - Varna

  47 EGMR, 7. Juni 2011, Csüllög/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2011:0607JUD003004208, § 46).
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 8 other applications

  As regards the specific matter of special prison regimes, such as detention in a high-security department, the Court has already held that such detention, be it on remand or following a criminal conviction, does not in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 80-82 and 138, ECHR 2006-IX; Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, §§ 13-16, 7 June 2011; Piechowicz, cited above, §§ 161 and 162, 17 April 2012; and Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 93, 21 July 2005).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  [ENG]

  These arrangements, intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 80-82, ECHR 2006-IX; Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 42-54, ECHR 2000-X; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 103-109, ECHR 2000-IV; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 78, 21 July 2005; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31, 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 48053/06

  USPANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (see Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, § 30, 7 June 2011, and Razvyazkin v. Russia, no. 13579/09, § 100, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 10.04.2025 - 4953/22

  MORABITO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 18.04.2023 - 43966/19

  N.M. c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 13421/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.05.2024 - 3646/17

  MAFALANI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 45358/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 70465/14

  TALI v. ESTONIA
• EGMR - 45907/20 (anhängig)

  SMIGOL v. ESTONIA
• EGMR - 38935/23 (anhängig)

  HIIENURM v. ESTONIA
• EGMR - 23325/22 (anhängig)

  AMEEN v. PORTUGAL and 3 other applications