Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DANILIUC v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 34, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 36020/06

  COSCODAR c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7262/06

  Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees, namely Emergency Ordinance No. 56/2003, Law No. 275/2006 and reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, are given in the cases of Petrea v. Romania (no. 4792/03, §§ 22-23, 29 April 2008); Bragadireanu v. Romania (no. 22088/04, §§ 73-75, 6 December 2007); and Coscodar v. Romania ((dec.) no. 36020/06, §§ 11-12, 9 March 2010).

  Where, as in the present case, telephone facilities are provided by the prison authorities, these may - having regard to the ordinary and reasonable conditions of prison life - be subjected to legitimate restrictions, for example, in the light of the shared nature of the facilities with other prisoners and the requirements of the prevention of disorder and crime (see A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, §§ 92-93, 29 January 2002, and Coscodar v. Romania (dec.), no. 36020/06, § 30, 9 March 2010).

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7262/06

  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, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7262/06

  The Court reiterates that it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03

  PETREA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7262/06

  Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees, namely Emergency Ordinance No. 56/2003, Law No. 275/2006 and reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, are given in the cases of Petrea v. Romania (no. 4792/03, §§ 22-23, 29 April 2008); Bragadireanu v. Romania (no. 22088/04, §§ 73-75, 6 December 2007); and Coscodar v. Romania ((dec.) no. 36020/06, §§ 11-12, 9 March 2010).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 22088/04

  BRAGADIREANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7262/06

  Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees, namely Emergency Ordinance No. 56/2003, Law No. 275/2006 and reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, are given in the cases of Petrea v. Romania (no. 4792/03, §§ 22-23, 29 April 2008); Bragadireanu v. Romania (no. 22088/04, §§ 73-75, 6 December 2007); and Coscodar v. Romania ((dec.) no. 36020/06, §§ 11-12, 9 March 2010).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97

  A.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7262/06

  Where, as in the present case, telephone facilities are provided by the prison authorities, these may - having regard to the ordinary and reasonable conditions of prison life - be subjected to legitimate restrictions, for example, in the light of the shared nature of the facilities with other prisoners and the requirements of the prevention of disorder and crime (see A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, §§ 92-93, 29 January 2002, and Coscodar v. Romania (dec.), no. 36020/06, § 30, 9 March 2010).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 44290/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7262/06

  Moreover, it does not appear that the conditions of detentions described by the applicant impacted badly on his physical or psychological well-being (see Sabeva v. Bulgaria, no. 44290/07, § 41, 10 June 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  In similar situations the Court has considered, for example, written statements by fellow inmates provided by applicants in support of their allegations (see Visloguzov, cited above, § 45) or documents showing that relevant issues had been brought to the attention of the domestic authorities as sufficient evidence to declare the complaint well-founded and shift the burden of proof to the Government (see Daniliuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 7262/06, § 53, 2 October 2012, and Aleksandr Vladimirovich Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 69250/11, § 47, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  [ENG]

  In respect of the effects that the impugned treatment had on the applicant, the Court notes that he did not submit any medical expert report or any other evidence showing that it had adversely affected his mental state or that a casual link existed between his mental state and the treatment in question (see Daniliuc v. Romania, (dec.), no. 7262/06, § 62, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 18152/11

  ERKENOV v. TURKEY

  In similar situations the Court has considered, for example, written statements by fellow detainees provided by applicants in support of their allegations (see Visloguzov, cited above) or documents showing that relevant issues had been brought to the attention of the domestic authorities as sufficient evidence to declare the complaint well-founded (see Daniliuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 7262/06, § 53, 2 October 2012, and Aleksandr Vladimirovich Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 69250/11, § 47, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 41980/18

  SILI v. UKRAINE

  Where, as in the present case, telephone facilities are provided by the prison authorities, these may - having regard to the ordinary and reasonable conditions of prison life - be subjected to legitimate restrictions, for example, in the light of the shared nature of the facilities with other prisoners and the requirements of the prevention of disorder and crime (see, for example, A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, §§ 92 and 93, 29 January 2002, and Daniliuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 7262/06, § 68, 2 October 2012).