Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CIUPERCESCU v. ROMANIA (No. 3)

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CIUPERCESCU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  At the outset, the Court reiterates that it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide the Court with further information as to the concrete consequences for his health, such as how his dentition might have affected his mastication or digestion (contrast with Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, § 184, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 67482/14

  LEBOIS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  However, the Court considers that Article 8 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing prisoners the right to communicate with the outside world by way of online devices, particularly where facilities for contact via alternative ways are available and adequate (see, in a similar context concerning the right to telephone calls, Lebois v. Bulgaria, no. 67482/14, § 61, 19 October 2017, with further references).

• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  DRAGAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  In these circumstances, and having regard to the relatively short period of time in question (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above), the Court considers that, notwithstanding the regrettable shortcomings mentioned in paragraph 96 above, the treatment complained of cannot be considered as having caused the applicant suffering attaining the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see, by way of contrast, Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86-94, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36020/06

  COSCODAR c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  In Coşcodar v. Romania ((dec.), no. 36020/06, §§ 30-35, 9 March 2010), the Court essentially held that where access to a telephone was permitted, it might - having regard to the ordinary and reasonable conditions of prison life - be subject to legitimate restrictions, for example in the light of the need for facilities to be shared with other prisoners, and the requirement to prevent disorder and crime.
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 61467/12

  REZMIVES c. ROUMANIE et 3 autres affaires

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  The Court observes that in the pilot case of Rezmiveş and Others v. Romania (nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, §§ 87-88 and §§ 115-116, 25 April 2017) it found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10

  TOMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  In any event, even assuming that the applicant's allegations as to his exposure to passive smoking were sufficiently evidenced, the Court considers that, in view of its limited duration, the treatment complained of did not attain the threshold of degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, § 119, 9 April 2019; and conversely, Retunscaia v. Romania, no. 25251/04, §§ 78-80, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  The Government argued that in view of the factual details concerning the applicant's detention in Giurgiu Prison (see paragraph 18 above), in particular the fact that he had had at least 3.39 square metres of personal space at his disposal, the Court should apply the principles set out in the case of Muršić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, 20 October 2016) and find that there had been enough elements to compensate for the lack of sufficient personal space, and thus find that the conditions of detention in Giurgiu Prison had been adequate.
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 16986/12

  ALEXANDRU ENACHE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  Having examined all the material submitted to it, including the relevant findings of the domestic courts (see in particular paragraphs 11 and 18 above), and in view of its case-law on the subject (see in particular Alexandru Enache v. Romania, no. 16986/12, § 46, 3 October 2017 and Muršić, cited above, § 139), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 71645/13

  YANEZ PINON v. MALTA and 2 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  In addition, it must be considered that, even when in his cell, the applicant was not exposed to extreme conditions, in view of the amount of personal space which he had at his disposal (see, for instance, Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta, nos. 71645/13 and 2 others, § 116, 19 December 2017).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 25251/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• OLG Bremen, 03.09.2021 - 1 AuslA 45/20

  Zur Zulässigkeit einer Auslieferung nach Rumänien im Hinblick auf die konkreten …

  Hinzu kommt, dass auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte zuletzt mit Urteil vom 07.01.2020, Ciupercescu v. Romania, Nr. 41995/14 und 50276/15, Rn. 66, in den rumänischen Haftanstalten Giurgiu und Jilava unmenschliche Haftbedingungen festgestellt hat.
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 3468/20

  SUBASI c. TURQUIE et 29 autres affaires

  41995/14 and 50276/15, §§ 107-08, 7 January 2020).
• EGMR, 12.12.2024 - 56545/21

  RIBÁR v. SLOVAKIA

  41995/14 and 50276/15, §§ 78 and 80, 7 January 2020 and Bechi v. Romania, no. 45709/20, § 51, 25 June 2024).

• OLG Bremen, 28.12.2022 - 1 AuslA 50/22

  Zulässigkeit einer Auslieferung aufgrund eines Europäischen Haftbefehls nach …

  Hinzu kommt, dass auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte zuletzt mit Urteil vom 07.01.2020, Ciupercescu v. Romania, Nr. 41995/14 und 50276/15, Rn. 66 in den Haftanstalten Giurgiu und Jilava unmenschliche Haftbedingungen festgestellt hat.
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 31576/19

  ROTH v. GERMANY

  41995/14 and 50276/15, § 105, 7 January 2020).
• EGMR, 18.06.2024 - 17/19

  SPÎNU v. ROMANIA

  En tout état de cause, aucun élément du dossier ne confirme que le requérant était empêché de communiquer avec sa grand-mère par des moyens alternatifs de communication, comme les appels téléphoniques (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ciupercescu c. Roumanie (no 3), nos 41995/14 et 50276/15, §§ 109-110, 7 janvier 2020).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 60450/13

  A.C. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  41995/14 and 50276/15, § 98, 7 January 2020; by way of contrast, Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86-94, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR - 53573/22 (anhängig)

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

  41995/14 and 50276/15, §§ 104-08, 7 January 2020)?.
• EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 41980/18

  SILI v. UKRAINE

  41995/14 and 50276/15, § 105, 7 January 2020).