Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POTOROC v. ROMANIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POTOROC v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 55089/13

  DORNEANU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  The relevant provisions of Articles 453 and 455 of the old CCP (in force before 1 February 2014), setting out the procedure on how to apply for an interruption of the prison sentence are described in the case of Dorneanu v. Romania (no. 55089/13, § 34, 28 November 2017).

  In respect of the second factor to be considered the Court reiterates that it is not sufficient for the prisoner to be examined and a diagnosis to be made, but that it is vital that treatment suited to the diagnosis be provided, together with appropriate post-treatment care (see Dorneanu v. Romania, no. 55089/13, § 79, 28 November 2017).

• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  Having conducted an overall assessment of the relevant facts on the basis of the evidence and submissions presented before it, and having regard in particular to the Government's submissions as to the material conditions of the detention of the applicant as a physically disabled inmate transferred between prison facilities which did not always provide him with personal assistance, or with conditions adapted to disabled inmates (see paragraphs 16-19 and 52-54 above), the Court considers that in the present case the care provided to the applicant in view of his state of health and disability does not demonstrate that the State worked to ensure that the applicant was detained in conditions compatible with respect for his human dignity (see, mutatis mutandis, Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 61, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 15351/03

  ZARZYCKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  The Court reiterates that where the national authorities decide to place or keep a person with disabilities in detention, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to the special needs resulting from the detainee's disability (see Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  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, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 116, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 93, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 116, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 93, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 79857/12

  MARIN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  However, in view of the fact that he was released for a period of approximately two years and seven months - between 7 August 2012 and until 9 March 2015 (interrupted by a short reimprisonment period of four days, from 5 to 9 January 2015 - see paragraphs 10 and 14-15 above) - the Court cannot but consider that the said period brought about significant changes to the conditions of his detention, and that therefore there was not a continuing situation in respect of the period of detention prior to and respectively subsequent to 9 March 2015 (see for instance Gagiu v. Romania, (dec.), no. 18869/04, §§ 31-32, 5 October 2010; contrast to Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 34-36, 26 June 2008, and Mihai Laurenţiu Marin v. Romania, no. 79857/12, § 30, 10 June 2014).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  However, in view of the fact that he was released for a period of approximately two years and seven months - between 7 August 2012 and until 9 March 2015 (interrupted by a short reimprisonment period of four days, from 5 to 9 January 2015 - see paragraphs 10 and 14-15 above) - the Court cannot but consider that the said period brought about significant changes to the conditions of his detention, and that therefore there was not a continuing situation in respect of the period of detention prior to and respectively subsequent to 9 March 2015 (see for instance Gagiu v. Romania, (dec.), no. 18869/04, §§ 31-32, 5 October 2010; contrast to Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 34-36, 26 June 2008, and Mihai Laurenţiu Marin v. Romania, no. 79857/12, § 30, 10 June 2014).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 44084/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  However, the Court reiterates that it has already voiced doubts as to the adequacy of assigning unqualified people responsibility for looking after an individual suffering from a serious illness (see Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, no. 44084/10, § 112, 5 March 2013).
• EGMR, 06.02.2014 - 2689/12

  SEMIKHVOSTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 37772/17

  Furthermore, the Court has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in circumstances where prison staff felt that they had been relieved of their duty to provide security and care to more vulnerable detainees whose cellmates had been made responsible for providing them with daily assistance or, if necessary, with first aid (see Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, §§ 84-85, 6 February 2014; Mircea Dumitrescu v. Romania, no. 14609/10, §§ 59-65, 30 July 2013; and Kaprykowski v. Poland, no. 23052/05, § 74, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 10401/12

  HELHAL AGAINST FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 14609/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 18869/04

  GAGIU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 58749/00

  MATENCIO c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 59452/09

  POTOROC c. ROUMANIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 73731/17

  EPURE v. ROMANIA

  Excerpts from the relevant domestic legislation setting out the procedure on how to apply for an interruption of a prison sentence on health grounds are given in Potoroc v. Romania (no. 37772/17, § 44, 2 June 2020).

  In the light of the above, and having also regard to the applicant's complaint before it, as described in paragraph 51 above, the Court concludes that the present case does not concern the question of the applicant's initial fitness to serve his sentence, but rather the quality of the care provided, and in particular whether the national authorities did everything that could reasonably be expected of them to provide him with the medical care he needed and to offer him some prospect of an improvement in his condition (see, mutatis mutandis, Potoroc v. Romania, no. 37772/17, §§ 73-74, 2 June 2020).

• EGMR, 17.10.2024 - 16310/20

  S.M. v. ITALY

  Specifically, when examining whether the detention of a person who is ill is compatible with Article 3 of the Convention, the Court will take into account: (a) the prisoner's health condition and the effect on the latter of the manner of execution of his or her imprisonment, (b) the quality of care provided, and (c) whether or not the applicant should continue to be detained in view of his or her state of health (see also Potoroc v. Romania, no. 37772/17, § 63, 2 June 2020).
• EGMR, 10.04.2025 - 4953/22

  MORABITO v. ITALY

  Specifically, when examining whether the detention of a person who is ill is compatible with Article 3 of the Convention, the Court will take into account: (a) the prisoner's state of health and the effect on it of the manner of execution of his or her imprisonment, (b) the quality of care provided, and (c) whether or not the applicant should continue to be detained in view of his or her state of health (see also Potoroc v. Romania, no. 37772/17, § 63, 2 June 2020).

• EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 7003/22

  CREA v. ITALY

  Rn. 20 Les principes généraux concernant la compatibilité de l'état de santé d'un requérant avec la détention en milieu carcéral ont été résumés dans l'arrêt Rooman c. Belgique ([GC], no 18052/11, §§ 141-148, 31 janvier 2019 ; quant aux requérants en situation de handicap, voir les affaires Zarzycki c. Pologne, no 15351/03, §§ 102-103, 12 mars 2013, Helhal c. France, no 10401/12, §§ 49-52, 19 février 2015, et Potoroc c. Roumanie, no 37772/17, §§ 61-65, 2 juin 2020).
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 45097/20

  LIBRI v. ITALY

  Specifically, the Court will take into account: (a) the prisoner's condition and the effect on the latter of the manner of his or her imprisonment, (b) the quality of care provided, and (c) whether or not the applicant should continue to be detained in view of his or her state of health (see Potoroc v. Romania, no. 37772/17, § 63, 2 June 2020, and Contrada v. Italy (no. 2), no. 7509/08, § 78, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 1017/21

  AVIGNONE v. ITALY

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to medical care in prison (see, for example, Rooman v. Belgium ([GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 144-48, 31 January 2019; Potoroc v. Romania, no. 37772/17, §§ 63-65, 2 June 2020; and Contrada v. Italy (no. 2), no. 7509/08, § 78, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 48309/19

  LANIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  The relevant general principles concerning the detention of persons who are seriously ill or persons with disabilities have been summarised in Enea v. Italy ([GC], no. 74912/01, §§ 55-59, ECHR 2009) and, more recently, in Potoroc v. Romania (no. 37772/17, §§ 61-65, 2 June 2020).
• EGMR, 28.05.2024 - 56697/21

  E.G. v. ITALY

  La Cour rappelle, en particulier, que la Convention n'impose aucune obligation générale de libérer un détenu pour raisons de santé (Potoroc c. Roumanie, no 37772/17, § 65, 2 juin 2020) ; cependant, son transfert s'impose si la prise en charge médicale n'est pas possible sur le lieu de détention (Rooman, précité, § 148).
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 17378/20

  RIELA v. ITALY

  Specifically, the Court will take into account: (a) the prisoner's condition and the effect on the latter of the manner of his or her imprisonment, (b) the quality of care provided, and (c) whether or not the applicant should continue to be detained in view of his or her state of health (see Potoroc v. Romania, no. 37772/17, § 63, 2 June 2020, and Contrada v. Italy (no. 2), no. 7509/08, § 78, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 43393/18

  BUJOR c. ROUMANIE

  Les articles 589 § 1 a) et 592 du CPP régissant les demandes de suspension de l'exécution d'une peine pour raisons médicales sont présentés dans l'arrêt Potoroc c. Roumanie, (no 37772/17, § 44, 2 juin 2020).