Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALERIAN DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Valerian Dragomir v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of execution of the measure of detention 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 Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of execution of the measure of detention 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 Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  According to the Court's established case-law, coercion is a crucial element in its examination of whether or not someone has been deprived of his or her liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Foka v. Turkey, no. 28940/95, §§ 74-79, 24 June 2008 and M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, §§ 186-193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  This applies, in particular, to cases in which Article 5 § 1 is at stake and the Court must then exercise a certain power to review whether national law has been observed (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  Excerpts from the relevant international and domestic reports concerning the situation in Romanian prisons are given in Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, (no. 35972/05, §§ 125-129, 4 July 2012).
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  The Court has considered extreme lack of space as a central factor in its analysis of whether an applicant's detention conditions complied with Article 3 (see Karalevicius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, § 39, 7 April 2005).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36479/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  In a series of cases, the Court considered that a clear case of overcrowding was a sufficient element for concluding that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated (see Colesnicov v. Romania, no. 36479/03, §§ 78-82, 21 December 2010, and Budaca v. Romania, no. 57260/10, §§ 40-45, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 57260/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  In a series of cases, the Court considered that a clear case of overcrowding was a sufficient element for concluding that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated (see Colesnicov v. Romania, no. 36479/03, §§ 78-82, 21 December 2010, and Budaca v. Romania, no. 57260/10, §§ 40-45, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 22661/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  Moreover, the Court has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of privacy when using the toilet (see Onaca v. Romania, no. 22661/06, §§ 38-39, 13 March 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 61467/12

  REZMIVES c. ROUMANIE et 3 autres affaires

  Les conditions matérielles de détention régnant dans les locaux de détention de la police roumaine ont fait l'objet d'une analyse par la Cour dans plusieurs affaires, dans lesquelles elle a constaté le surpeuplement, la médiocrité des conditions d'hygiène, l'inadéquation des annexes sanitaires et la possibilité très limitée de passer du temps à l'extérieur de la cellule (voir, notamment, Gomoi c. Roumanie, no 42720/10, §§ 24-28, 22 mars 2016 ; Ghiroga c. Roumanie, no 53168/12, §§ 31-36, 16 mai 2015 ; Valerian Dragomir c. Roumanie, no 51012/11, § 47, 16 septembre 2014 ; Mihăilescu c. Roumanie, no 46546/12, § 57, 1er juillet 2014 ; Zamfirachi c. Roumanie, no 70719/10, § 66, 17 juin 2014 ; Voicu c. Roumanie, no 22015/10, § 53, 10 juin 2014 ; Florin Andrei c. Roumanie, no 33228/05, § 45, 15 avril 2014 ; Ciobanu c. Roumanie et Italie, no 4509/08, §§ 47-50, 9 juillet 2013 ; Marin Vasilescu c. Roumanie, no 62353/09, §§ 33-37, 11 juin 2013) ; Artimenco, précité, § 35 ; et Viorel Burzo c. Roumanie, no 75109/01 et 12639/02, §§ 98-99, 30 juin 2009).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 20307/02

  ALI CONTRE LA ROUMANIE ET 120 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  51012/11.
• EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 25344/20

  FRIEDRICH v. POLAND and 17 other applications

  The Court does not consider itself bound by the legal conclusions of the domestic authorities as to whether or not there has been a deprivation of liberty, and undertakes an autonomous assessment of the situation (see Khlaifia and Others, cited above § 71; Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 92, 23 February 2012; Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 67, 16 September 2014; Čamans and Timofejeva, cited above, § 108; and Bryan and Others v. Russia, no. 22515/14, § 62, 27 June 2023).

• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  [ENG]

  This may be the case even when there is no direct physical restraint of the applicant, such as by handcuffing or placement in a locked cell (see, for instance, Popoviciu v. Romania, no. 52942/09, § 59, 1 March 2016; Lazariu v. Romania, no. 31973/03, § 100, 13 November 2014; Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania, no. 41040/11, § 89, 13 January 2015; Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 70, 16 September 2014; Ghiurău v. Romania, no. 55421/10, § 80, 20 November 2012; Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, § 36, 26 June 2014, with further references therein; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 5297/16

  ISHKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court does not consider itself bound by the legal conclusions of the domestic authorities as to whether or not there has been a deprivation of liberty, and undertakes an autonomous assessment of the situation (see the above-cited cases of Khlaifia, § 71; Creangă, § 92; see also Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 67, 16 September 2014; Čamans and Timofejeva v. Latvia, no. 42906/12, § 108, 28 April 2016; and Bryan and Others, cited above, § 62).
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 29405/16

  CONSTANTINOVICI v. ROMANIA

  Against this background, the periods during which the applicant was kept waiting before being questioned do not lack justification to such an extent as to become arbitrary (see, by way of contrast, Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, §§ 81-82, 16 September 2014).
• EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 42906/12

  CAMANS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  The fact that both the national authorities and subsequently the respondent Government considered that an applicant had not been arrested and detained does not therefore automatically mean that he was not deprived of his liberty (see Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 67, 16 September 2014).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 53168/12

  GHIROGA c. ROUMANIE

  De surcroît, la Cour note que les allégations du requérant relatives à la médiocrité des conditions d'hygiène sont également plausibles et qu'elles reflètent des réalités qu'elle-même a constatées dans d'autres affaires relatives aux conditions régnant dans les locaux de détention de la police roumaine (Voicu c. Roumanie, no 22015/10, § 53, 10 juin 2014, Zamfirachi c. Roumanie, no 70719/10, § 66, 17 juin 2014, et Valerian Dragomir c. Roumanie, no 51012/11, § 47, 16 septembre 2014, pour les locaux de détention de la police à Bucarest ; Florin Andrei c. Roumanie, no 33228/05, § 45, 15 avril 2014, pour les locaux de détention de la police à Constanţa ; et Mihăilescu c. Roumanie, no 46546/12, § 57, 1er juillet 2014, pour les locaux de détention de la police à Bacău).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 26990/15

  STANCULEANU v. ROMANIA

  Noting therefore that the measures taken against the applicant were "situated in a punitive context", the Court considers that the lawfulness of the applicant's deprivation of liberty must be examined under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 77, 16 September 2014 and, mutatis mutandis, Hoalgă and Others v. Romania, no. 76672/12, § 107, 15 March 2016; contrast, Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, § 74, 22 May 2008).
• EGMR, 31.07.2025 - 13375/18

  SIEDLECKA v. POLAND

  It does not consider itself bound by the legal conclusions of the domestic authorities as to whether or not there has been a deprivation of liberty, and undertakes an autonomous assessment of the situation (see Khlaifia and Others, cited above, § 71; Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 92, 23 February 2012; Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 67, 16 September 2014; Čamans and Timofejeva v. Latvia, no. 42906/12, § 108, 28 April 2016; and Bryan and Others v. Russia, no. 22515/14, § 62, 27 June 2023; Friedrich and Others v. Poland, nos.
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 43545/13

  MOCANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  POPOVICIU v. ROMANIA