Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violations of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13+3 No violation of Art. 13+8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 35207/03
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-...).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim (see the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1775, § 28; Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim (see the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1775, § 28; Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).

• EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA

  The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning the remedies available for complaints under Article 3 of the Convention have been set out in Ostrovar v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 35207/03, 22 March 2005) and Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, §§ 68-71, 11 July 2006).

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 80, 13 September 2005).

  The Court has already found that overpopulation in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 84, 13 September 2005), especially when it lasts for long periods as in the case of the applicant, who was detained on remand for over five years in prison no. 3.

• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  IACOV STANCIU v. ROMANIA

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 square metres per inmate - 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 (extracts); and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  ORCHOWSKI v. POLAND

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² per inmate - 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).

 
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle rappelle que le premier constat de violation de l'article 3 de la Convention par la République de Moldova du fait des mauvaises conditions de détention dans ses prisons a été opéré dans l'arrêt Ostrovar (Ostrovar c. Moldova, no 35207/03, §§ 80-90, 13 septembre 2005) et que, depuis lors, elle a régulièrement conclu à la même violation dans plus de trente affaires moldaves.
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  MANDIC AND JOVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 square metres per inmate - 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 (extracts), and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 17249/12

  SZAFRANSKI v. POLAND

  m per inmate - the Court found a violation of Article 3 since the space factor was coupled with an 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 with a lack of basic privacy in the detainee's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 10662/06

  ENACHE v. ROMANIA

  The Court notes that, in addition to overcrowding, other aspects of the physical conditions of detention are relevant for its assessment of compliance with Article 3 (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; Babushkin v Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; and Iacov Stanciu, cited above, § 169).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04

  LAUTARU v. ROMANIA

  m per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation, lighting or appropriate hygiene conditions (see, for example, Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III; Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, § 98, 12 April 2011, not final and Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, §§ 59-61, 1 June 2010), or lack of basic privacy in a prisoner's everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 2967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 007; Valasinas, cited above, § 04; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 847/02, §§ 06 and 107, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005 and Iamandi, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 19320/07

  BUTIUC AND DUMITROF v. ROMANIA

  The Court further notes that, in addition to overcrowding, other aspects of physical conditions of detention are relevant for its assessment of compliance with Article 3 (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 89, 13 September 2005; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; and Iacov Stanciu, cited above, § 169).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 31725/04

  BADILA v. ROMANIA

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of three to four square metres per inmate - the Court has found a violation of Article 3 because the space factor was coupled with an 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or lack of basic privacy in a 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 and 107, ECHR 2005-X; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  STEPULEAC v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 60201/09

  GATTO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  TOMA BARBU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9643/03

  GOH v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  KOMISSAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 10809/06

  TURCAN v. MOLDOVA