Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALVER v. ESTONIA

  Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 64812/01
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

  Nevertheless, 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

  The length of the period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI, and Kehayov v. Bulgaria, no. 41035/98, § 64, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

  Finally, as regards the Government's submissions that the authorities had no desire to cause physical or mental suffering to the applicant, the Court reiterates that, 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 exclude a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 101).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

  However, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Article 3 did not require an applicant to show deliberate imposition of pain or deliberate indifference to it (Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 55, 8 November 2005; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 74-75, ECHR 2001-III), whereas this was a specific requirement in order to show a violation of the Eighth Amendment (the subjective test set out in Wilson: see paragraph 105 above).

  The length of the period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered (see, among other authorities, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 64, 19 June 2007; Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005; Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 79, 13 September 2005).

• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 39412/19

  POLGAR c. ROUMANIE

  S'appuyant sur la jurisprudence de la Cour (les affaires Micu c. Roumanie, no 29883/06, 8 février 2011 ; Rupa c. Roumanie (no 1), no 58478/00, 16 décembre 2008 ; Kudla, précité ; Alver c. Estonie, no 64812/01, 8 novembre 2005 ; Dougoz c. Grèce, no 40907/98, CEDH 2001-II ; et Karalevicius c. Lituanie, no 53254/99, 7 avril 2005), elle rappela que la surpopulation était, très souvent, l'élément principal à prendre en considération dans l'appréciation des conditions de détention et qu'elle représentait un problème structurel au niveau national.
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 50130/12

  BANDUR v. HUNGARY

  The length of time a person is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered (see, among other authorities, Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 13817/05

  AKSENOV v. RUSSIA

  While finding it particularly disturbing that the activation of the applicant's infection could have occurred in a custodial institution within the State's control as an apparent consequence of the authorities" failure to eradicate or prevent the spread of the disease, the Court reiterates its consistent approach that this fact in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that the applicant received treatment for it (see Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 56, 18 October 2007; Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 53, 30 July 2009; Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 65, 30 September 2010; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 88, 21 December 2010; Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 66, 5 April 2011; and more recently, Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, § 40, 1 March 2012).