Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 52750/99
• EGMR, 28.08.2001 - 52750/99
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

Wird zitiert von ... (49)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  On the other hand, the removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or degrading punishment (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V).

  Whilst it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the prison authorities should assist him in maintaining contact with his family (see Messina v. Italy, no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-X), the Court recognises at the same time that some measure of control over prisoners' contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI).

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor further to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).

  Whilst it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the prison authorities should assist him in maintaining contact with his family (see Messina v. Italy, no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-X), the Court recognises at the same time that some measure of control over prisoners' contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI).

• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 124, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  Given that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see Lacko and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47237/99, 2 July 2002; K. v. the United Kingdom, application no. 11468/85, Commission decision of 15 October 1986, DR 50, p. 199), the Court considers that the proceedings before the Appeals Board and the possibility of interim injunction proceedings taken together provided the applicants with an effective remedy (see Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, pp. 29-30, § 77).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  The Court has previously found that strip-searches may be necessary on occasions to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime (see Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; Iwańczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001, unreported; McFeeley et al.
• EKMR, 15.05.1980 - 8317/78

  McFEELEY et al. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  v. the United Kingdom, application no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, DR 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 41576/98

  GANCI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  To this extent the case may be compared to a series of applications lodged against Italy where the applicants alleged that the special prison regime to which they were subjected pursuant to section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act resulted in conditions which violated Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Messina v. Italy (dec.), cited above; Indelicato v. Italy (dec.), no. 31143/96, 6 July 2000, unreported; Ganci v. Italy (dec.), no. 41576/98, 20 September 2001, unreported; Bonura v. Italy (dec.), no. 57360/00, 30 May 2002, unreported).
• EGMR, 20.01.2016 - 25196/94

  IWÁNCZUK CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  The Court has previously found that strip-searches may be necessary on occasions to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime (see Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; Iwańczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001, unreported; McFeeley et al.
• EKMR, 15.10.1986 - 11468/85

  K. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  Given that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see Lacko and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47237/99, 2 July 2002; K. v. the United Kingdom, application no. 11468/85, Commission decision of 15 October 1986, DR 50, p. 199), the Court considers that the proceedings before the Appeals Board and the possibility of interim injunction proceedings taken together provided the applicants with an effective remedy (see Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, pp. 29-30, § 77).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 47237/99

  LACKO AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  Given that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see Lacko and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47237/99, 2 July 2002; K. v. the United Kingdom, application no. 11468/85, Commission decision of 15 October 1986, DR 50, p. 199), the Court considers that the proceedings before the Appeals Board and the possibility of interim injunction proceedings taken together provided the applicants with an effective remedy (see Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, pp. 29-30, § 77).
• EKMR, 12.07.1984 - 10448/83

  D. contre la BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.09.2015 - 23380/09

  BOUYID v. BELGIUM

  It is not for the Court to impose general rules of conduct on law-enforcement officers; instead, its task is limited to examining the applicants" individual situation to the extent that they allege that they were personally affected by the treatment complained of (see, mutatis mutandis, Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 62, 4 February 2003; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 50, ECHR 2003-II; and Lindström and Mässeli v. Finland, no. 24630/10, § 41, 14 January 2014).
• EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 62617/00

  Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte schützt private Nutzung des Internets

  58. According to its settled caselaw, the Court will award costs and expenses in so far as these relate to the violation found and to the extent to which they have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, Schouten and Meldrum v. the Netherlands, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 304, pp. 28­29, § 78 and Lors´ and Others v. the Nee therlands, no. 52750/99, § 103, 4 February 2003).
• BVerfG, 05.11.2016 - 2 BvR 6/16

  Bei der Anordnung der stichprobenartigen Durchsuchung von Strafgefangenen muss …

  Mit Entkleidungen und der Inspektion von Körperöffnungen verbundene Durchsuchungen können danach durch die Erfordernisse der Sicherheit und Ordnung der Haftanstalt gerechtfertigt sein; sie müssen aber in schonender Weise - unter anderem außerhalb möglichen Sichtkontakts anderer Gefangener oder unnötigerweise anwesenden Personals - und dürfen nicht routinemäßig, unabhängig von fallbezogenen Verdachtsgründen, durchgeführt werden (siehe im Einzelnen EGMR, Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Van der Ven ./. Niederlande, Beschwerde Nr. 50901/99, Rn. 62; Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Lorsé u.a. ./. Niederlande, Beschwerde Nr. 52750/99, Rn. 74;… Urteil vom 12. Juni 2007, Frérot ./. Frankreich, Beschwerde Nr. 70204/01, Rn. 41, 47;… Urteil vom 27. November 2012, Savics ./. Lettland, Beschwerde Nr. 17892/03, Rn. 133, 142 ff.; Urteil vom 10. Oktober 2013, Voloshyn ./. Ukraine, Beschwerde Nr. 15853/08, Rn. 53 f.; Urteil vom 14. Januar 2014, Lindström u.a. ./. Finnland, Beschwerde Nr. 24630/10, Rn. 43; Urteil vom 31. Juli 2014, Jaeger ./. Estland, Beschwerde Nr. 1574/13, Rn. 40 ff.; Urteil vom 14. Juni 2016, Pugzlys ./. Polen, Beschwerde Nr. 446/10, Rn. 58 ff.).

• BVerfG, 10.07.2013 - 2 BvR 2815/11

  Körperliche Durchsuchung im Strafvollzug (allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht; …

  Mit Entkleidungen und der Inspektion von Körperöffnungen verbundene Durchsuchungen können danach durch die Erfordernisse der Sicherheit und Ordnung der Haftanstalt gerechtfertigt sein; sie müssen aber in schonender Weise - unter anderem außerhalb möglichen Sichtkontakts anderer Gefangener oder unnötigerweise anwesenden Personals - und dürfen nicht routinemäßig, unabhängig von fallbezogenen Verdachtsgründen, durchgeführt werden (s. im Einzelnen EGMR…, Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Van der Ven ./. Niederlande, Beschwerde Nr. 50901/99, Rn. 62; Urteil vom 4. Februar 2003, Lorsé u.a. ./. Niederlande, Beschwerde Nr. 52750/99, Rn. 74;… Urteil vom 12. Juni 2007, Frérot ./. Frankreich, Beschwerde Nr. 70204/01, Rn. 41, 47;… Urteil vom 27. November 2012, Savics ./. Lettland, Beschwerde Nr. 17892/03, Rn. 133, 142 ff.).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 13600/02

  BAYBASIN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights [of 4 February 2003 in the case of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99] and the ruling of the interim-measures judge (voorzieningenrechter) of the Regional Court of The Hague of 7 July 2003, as cited by the [applicant], were given after (the major part of) the strip-searches and frisking of which complaint is made.

  For the determination of the appeal are also of relevance the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 February 2003 [Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands] (nos. 52750/99 and 50901/99).

  As regards the weekly strip-searches after the cell inspection it was held [in the case of Lorsé and Others] (no. 52750/99):.

  On 1 March 2003, in view of the Court's findings in its judgments of 4 February 2003 in the cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (cited above) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99), the EBI house rules (huisregels) were amended in that the practice of weekly routine strip-searches accompanying the weekly cell inspections was abandoned.

  (Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, Application no. 50901/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 63; see also Lorsé et al v. the Netherlands, Application no. 52750/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 74).

  The Court reiterates the general considerations as set out in its judgments in the similar cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 46-53, ECHR 2003-II) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99, §§ 58-65, 4 February 2003) and its findings in these cases.

• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 14683/03

  SYLLA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For the determination of the appeal are also of relevance the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 February 2003 [Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands] (nos. 52750/99 and 50901/99).

  As regards the weekly strip-searches after the cell inspection it was held [in the case of Lorsé and Others] (no. 52750/99):.

  On 1 March 2003, in view of the Court's findings in its judgments of 4 February 2003 in the cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (cited above) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99), the EBI house rules (huisregels) were amended in that the practice of weekly routine strip-searches accompanying the weekly cell inspections was abandoned.

  (Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, Application no. 50901/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 63; see also Lorsé et al v. the Netherlands, Application no. 52750/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 74).

  The Court reiterates the general considerations as set out in its judgments in the similar cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 46-53, ECHR 2003-II) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99, §§ 58-65, 4 February 2003) and its findings in these cases.

• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  In any event, the Court reiterates that, although physical separation of a detainee from his visitors may be justified by security considerations in certain cases (see the above-cited Italian cases and also the Dutch cases concerning a prison regime designed to prevent escapes: Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 71, ECHR 2003-II, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 85, 4 February 2003), the measure cannot be considered necessary in the absence of any established security risk (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 117, 19 June 2007).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  [ENG]

  De même, dans le contexte des prisons de haute sécurité, l'application de mesures telles qu'une séparation physique peut être motivée par les impératifs de sécurité en vigueur au sein de l'établissement concerné ou par le risque qu'un détenu communique avec des organisations criminelles par le truchement de membres de sa famille (Lorsé et autres c. Pays-Bas, no 52750/99, §§ 83-86, 4 février 2003, et Van der Ven c. Pays-Bas, no 50901/99, §§ 69-72, CEDH 2003-II).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 8196/02

  SALAH v. THE NETHERLANDS

  On 1 March 2003, in view of the Court's findings in its judgments of 4 February 2003 in the cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (cited above) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99), the EBI house rules (huisregels) were amended in that the practice of weekly routine strip-searches accompanying the weekly cell inspections was abandoned.

  (Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, Application no. 50901/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 63; see also Lorsé et al v. the Netherlands, Application no. 52750/99, ECtHR 4 February 2002, § 74).

  Reiterating the general considerations as set out in its judgments in the similar cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 46-53, ECHR 2003-II) and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99, §§ 58-65, 4 February 2003) and its findings in these cases, the Court considers that, to the extent that this complaint concerns the weekly routine strip-searches to which the applicant was subjected during his stay in the EBI, it cannot determine on the basis of the case file the admissibility of this part of the application and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.

• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 8595/06

  [FRE]

  S'agissant du placement de Tom De Clippel à l'isolement, le Gouvernement met en exergue le fait qu'il était limité à deux jours, et rappelle qu'il s'agit là d'une « sanction habituelle ", prévue par le règlement général des établissements pénitentiaires, non contraire en elle-même à l'article 3 (le Gouvernement renvoie à cet égard au rapport de la Commission européenne des Droits de l'Homme du 14 mai 1987 dans l'affaire Dhoest c. Belgique, no 10448/03, § 117, et à l'arrêt Lorsé et autres c. Pays-Bas, no 52750/99, § 63), et répondant en l'occurrence au fait que l'intéressé avait blessé un compagnon de cellule au cours d'un affrontement ainsi qu'à la nécessité de protéger son intégrité physique comme celle des autres détenus.
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14

  CEESAY v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07

  BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 74884/13

  TSARPELAS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 39912/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.04.2025 - 4953/22

  MORABITO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 07.10.2021 - 49529/12

  SYRIANOS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 64930/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 37575/04

  BOULOIS v. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 09.09.2010 - 1033/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 80564/12

  SARRIA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 4242/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 19606/08

  PAYET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 35555/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 65039/01

  SCHIAVONE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 47810/99

  NARCISIO v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 9967/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 82939/17

  TAKÓ v. HUNGARY and 1 other application
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 48106/13

  GOIA c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 15750/02

  UYAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 14683/03

  SYLLA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 52391/99

  RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 49059/18

  PATAI AND FARAGÓ v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 16906/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 20920/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 35086/02

  MARIANO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 16702/04

  DELL'ANNA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 63748/00

  TASTAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 13600/02

  BAYBASIN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 32768/03

  CSAKY v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 19.02.2004 - 59450/00

  RAMIREZ SANCHEZ contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 37648/02

  PAOLELLO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 34238/07

  IWUC-BETCHER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 28320/02

  GUIDI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 70204/01

  FREROT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 40225/02

  SOTIROPOULOU c. GRECE
• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 37936/04

  CORDI c. ITALIE