Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAMFIRACHI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 70719/10
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10
• EGMR - 70719/10 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  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 v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  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 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 v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 67754/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  It considers that the overcrowded cells can only increase the difficulties of the authorities and of the detainees to maintain an appropriate level of hygiene (see Ion Ciobanu v. Romania, no. 67754/10, § 42, 30 April 2013 and Stark v. Romania, no. 31968/07, § 35, 18 February 2014 (not final)).
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 31968/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  It considers that the overcrowded cells can only increase the difficulties of the authorities and of the detainees to maintain an appropriate level of hygiene (see Ion Ciobanu v. Romania, no. 67754/10, § 42, 30 April 2013 and Stark v. Romania, no. 31968/07, § 35, 18 February 2014 (not final)).

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  Moreover, it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes, even if not in the eyes of others (Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 32, Series A no. 26).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  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 v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions of Law no. 275/2006 concerning the rights of detainees are given in the case of Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, (no. 35972/05, § 116, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 20307/02

  ALI CONTRE LA ROUMANIE ET 120 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  Excerpts from the relevant domestic law concerning the use of handcuffs are set out in the cases of Costiniu v. Romania (dec.), no. 22016/10, §§ 14-18, 19 February 2013, and Carpen v. Romania, no. 61258/10, § 21, 14 January 2014 [not final]).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 24708/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  The relevant conclusions of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the CPT") after its visits in 2002 and 2003 to the Bucharest Police Department's cells are described in Ogica v. Romania, no. 24708/03, §§ 25-26, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36479/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 70719/10

  With regard to the impact of this measure on the applicant, the Court notes that the applicant did not provide the Court with any evidence in support of his allegations, such as a medical report or any other document capable of establishing that he had suffered psychological problems beyond the stress and psychological tension inherent in any safety measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Colesnicov v. Romania, no. 36479/03, § 95, 21 December 2010, Patriciu v, Romania (dec.), no. 43750/05, §§ 51-53, 19 March 2013 and Minculescu v. Romania (dec.), 7993/05, § 67, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 22016/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7993/05

  [FRE]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen