Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MANDIC AND JOVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mandic and Jovic v. Slovenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10, 5985/10
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 5774/10

Wird zitiert von ... (82)Zitiert selbst (31)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 55, ECHR 2009-..., and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).

  Referring also to Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI, the court noted that the rights guaranteed by the Convention represented minimum standards and that the protection afforded by the national legislation should go beyond this minimum.

• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  MODARCA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  This state of affairs in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Sulejmanovic, cited above, §§ 43 and 44, and Modarca v. Moldova, no. 14437/05, § 63, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  Under Article 3 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 the execution of the measure 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, cited above, § 102, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  Furthermore, in considering whether a treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas, cited above, § 101).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  The respondent State remains free, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

  Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  23536/94 and 24408/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  In the present case, the Court notes that the restrictions on phone calls and the number and duration of visits, which were provided for in the relevant legislation (see paragraphs 25, 28 and 29 above), do not appear to be unreasonable in themselves, given the necessity to uphold the prison regime (see, mutatis mutandis, A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, §§ 92 and 93, 29 January 2002, and Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 74, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  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, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  In its previous cases where applicants had at their disposal less than 3 square metres of personal space, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Sulejmanovic v. Italy, no. 22635/03, § 51, 16 July 2009; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, § 47-49, 29 March 2007; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

  Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 22635/03

  SULEJMANOVIC c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 77568/01
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97

  A.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39483/98

  NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  LEHTINEN contre la FINLANDE
• EKMR, 14.05.1987 - 11192/84

  MONTION contre la France
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  Therefore, this remedy, while theoretically capable of providing redress to the applicants, does not appear, for the time being, to be capable of doing so in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Mandic and Jovic v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 112 and 114, 20 October 2011; Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 110 and 217; and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17

  DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY

  The Court further reiterates that, within the context of prison overcrowding, in the case of Bizjak (decision cited above, §§ 37-43), it held that compensation awarded by a national court and representing approximately 30% of the award made by the Court in the pilot judgment Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, § 132, 20 October 2011) did not appear to be unreasonable or disproportionate.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.03.2016 - C-404/15

  Aranyosi und Căldăraru - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Polizeiliche …

  {FN:14} - Vgl. EGMR, Karalevičius/Litauen, Nr. 53254/99, 7. April 2005, Norbert Sikorski/Polen, Nr. 17599/05, 22. Oktober 2009, sowie Mandic und Jovic/Slowenien, Nrn. 5774/10 und 5985/10, 20. Oktober 2011.

• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA

  Therefore, that remedy, while theoretically capable of providing redress to the applicants, does not appear, for the time being, to be capable of doing so in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Mandic and Jovic v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, § 112, 20 October 2011, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 110).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  [ENG]

  5774/10 and 5985/10, § 77, 20 October 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 64682/12

  Rumänischer Ex-Häftling erhält von Belgien 10.000EUR wegen schlechter …

  « 50. [...] la question décisive est de savoir si la personne intéressée peut obtenir des juridictions internes un redressement direct et approprié, et pas simplement une protection indirecte de ses droits garantis par l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, entre autres, Mandić et Jović c. Slovénie, nos 5774/10 et 5985/10, § 107, 20 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 23190/17

  PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL et 4 autres affaires

  Cela étant, elle observe relativement à la question de l'effectivité des recours qu'il ne peut pas rendre de décisions contraignantes (paragraphe 34 ci-dessus) et qu'il a le pouvoir non pas de prononcer des injonctions à l'encontre de l'administration mais uniquement de formuler des recommandations (Mandić et Jović c. Slovénie, nos 5774/10 et 5985/10, § 117, 20 octobre 2011, Ananyev et autres, précité, §§ 105-106, et Mironovas et autres c. Lituanie, nos 40828/12 et 6 autres, §§ 107-109, 8 décembre 2015 ; voir, a contrario, Sakin c. Turquie (déc.), no 20616/13, § 33, 28 juin 2016).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 40119/09

  [FRE]

  Cela étant, l'espace de vie individuel en l'espèce ne justifie pas, à lui seul, le constat de violation de l'article 3 de la Convention (a contrario, parmi de nombreux exemples, Lind c. Russie, no 25664/05, § 59, 6 décembre 2007 ; Mandic et Jovic c. Slovénie, nos 5774/10 et 5985/10, § 77, 20 octobre 2011), une telle violation n'étant retenue que lorsque les requérants disposent individuellement de moins de 3 m² (Ananyev, précité, § 145).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  STRUCL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 34-36, 27 September 2011.
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 35614/19

  ILERDE AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  Thus, irrespective of whether civil or administrative courts are competent to examine compensation claims with respect to conditions of detention, the Court observes that the compensatory remedy in question does not have a preventive component, in the sense that it does not lead to the improvement of the conditions of detention of those claimants who continue to be detained in such conditions; it was not demonstrated before the Court that the domestic courts - whether civil courts of general jurisction or administrative courts - imposed (or could impose) immediate measures in the form of injunctions or otherwise in order to change a situation (see Orchowski, cited above, § 108; see also, mutatis mutandis, Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, § 114, 20 October 2011, and Singh and Others v. Greece, no. 60041/13, § 37, 19 January 2017).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 5711/10

  LALIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65020/13

  ANASTASOV AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16

  NIKITIN v. ESTONIA and 5 other applications
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 21164/20

  RUTAR AND RUTAR MARKETING D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33729/18

  Zelle mit gut drei Quadratmetern persönlichem Raum ist menschenunwürdig
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 37139/13

  MONIR LOTFY v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 60439/12

  ZIROVNICKÝ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 25516/12

  BIZJAK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  L.M. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 40146/11

  KANAKIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 24125/06

  W v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 5767/10

  MESIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 5747/10

  JEVSNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 6682/10

  FERENC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 14411/16

  OSKIRKO v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 21318/12

  DANILCZUK v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 5738/10

  SABIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 62120/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 6982/18

  STEPONAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 25988/16

  VISNIAKOVAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 37927/12

  ARAPOVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 50494/12

  YENGO c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 6687/10

  FAGANEL v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 29998/10

  PUZIN v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 5773/10

  MASELJ v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 5998/10

  PETROVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 6000/10

  BRLEK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 5741/10

  SEMIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 6120/10

  SLEMENSEK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 6011/10

  STRUKELJ v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 7054/10

  CETIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2012 - 35016/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 14000/12

  T.K. v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 56220/15

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 50844/12

  BELJKAS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 68820/13

  MISCHIE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 2664/10

  IOVITA c. ROUMANIE et 1 autre requête
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 429/12

  TUNIS v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 6125/10

  MRAVLJAK v. SLOVENIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
• EGMR, 28.06.2012 - 6234/10

  PRAZNIK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 6387/10

  PECENKO v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 9570/12

  BOLTEZAR v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 6625/10

  BEGANOVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6399/10

  KAJTAZOVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 5971/10

  SUSTERSIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6427/10

  KREMPL v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6170/10

  MAJCEN v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 7048/10

  GAJSEK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 6948/10

  STANIVUK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 6154/10

  RAUTER v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 5831/10

  AJDAROVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 5816/10

  SOTNER v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 5830/10

  KATIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 5778/10

  BRAJDIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5720/10

  MISIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 6057/10

  SINKO v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 6690/10

  TIRIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5896/10

  KUNC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 6408/10

  DRAGANIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7236/10

  GALIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 6452/10

  DRAGISIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 7117/10

  UJCIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 5835/10

  BRAJDIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6888/10

  KERMC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6910/10

  BRAJDIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 6559/10

  CUDEN v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 6684/10

  POHOREC v. SLOVENI
• EGMR, 28.06.2012 - 40245/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 5951/10

  SRPAK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5959/10

  FABIJANCIC v. SLOVENIA