Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORCHOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  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, 74, ECHR 2001-III; Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  The Court concludes that for many years, namely from 2000 until at least mid-2008, the overcrowding in Polish prisons and remand centres revealed a structural problem consisting of "a practice that is incompatible with the Convention" (see mutatis mutandis Broniowski v. Poland, cited above, §§ 190-191, ECHR 2004-V; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 229-231, ECHR 2006-...; Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V with respect to the Italian length of proceedings cases).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  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, and Broniowski v. Poland cited above, §§ 192).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  In addition, as the applicant's personal space was particularly limited for almost the entire day and night, he had to have his meals inside his overcrowded cell and to shower along with the group of strangers, sometimes as many as twenty-four, and finally, as he had constantly been moved between cells and facilities, the Court considers that those conditions obviously did not allow any elementary privacy and aggravated the applicant's situation (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 99, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  Thus, even in cases where a larger prison cell was at issue - measuring in the range of 3 to 4 m² 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 v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III) or the lack of basic privacy in his or her everyday life (see, mutatis mutandis, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007; Valasinas, cited above, § 104; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 106 and 107; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32, 40-43, 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17885/04

  (Valasinas, cited above, § 102; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

• EuGH, 15.10.2019 - C-128/18

  Dorobantu - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Polizeiliche und justizielle …

  Unter Bezugnahme auf die Urteile des EGMR vom 22. Oktober 2009, 0rchowski/Polen (CE:ECHR:2009:1022JUD001788504), vom 19. März 2013, Bleju?Ÿca/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2013:0319JUD000791010), und vom 10. Juni 2014, Mihai Laurentiu Marin/Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2014:0610JUD007985712), nahm das OLG Hamburg eine Gesamtwürdigung der Haftbedingungen in Rumänien vor.
• BVerfG, 18.08.2017 - 2 BvR 424/17

  Einstweilige Anordnung gegen eine Auslieferung nach Rumänien zum Zwecke der …

  Zu dieser Gewährleistung hat die Große Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte eine die bisherige Rechtsprechung vereinheitlichende Entscheidung getroffen und festgestellt, dass die starke Vermutung einer Verletzung von Art. 3 EMRK bestehe, wenn der persönliche Raum des Häftlings in einem Gemeinschaftshaftraum unter 3 m² falle (vgl. Urteil vom 20. Oktober 2016, Mur?ic ./. Kroatien, Beschwerde Nr. 7334/13, § 124; ähnlich bereits zuvor EGMR, Urteil vom 10. Januar 2012, Ananyev u.a. ./. Russland, Beschwerden Nr. 42525/07 und 60800/08 (Piloturteil), NVwZ-RR 2013, 284 ; und EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Oktober 2009, 0rchowski ./. Polen, Beschwerde Nr. 17885/04, § 123).
• OLG Hamburg, 03.01.2017 - Ausl 81/16

  Zulässigkeit einer Auslieferung nach Rumänien: Prüfung der Haftbedingungen in …

  Vor diesem Hintergrund hat der EGMR - trotz Betonung der Notwendigkeit einer Gesamtbetrachtung ("cumulative effects of the conditions") - unter Verweis auf seine Rechtsprechung in der Sache Orchowski v. Polen (Urt. v. 22. Oktober 2009, 1ndividualbeschwerde Nr. 17885/04) einen Konventionsverstoß bejaht und jedenfalls einen individuellen Haftraumplatz von unter drei Quadratmetern als nicht konventionskonform beanstandet (…vgl. z.B. EGMR, Urt. v. 10. Juni 2014, Marin v. Rumänien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 79857/12).
• OLG Oldenburg, 27.05.2020 - 1 Ausl 29/18

  Unzulässige Auslieferung an die Ukraine; Gerichtliche Prüfpflicht zur Einhaltung …

  Um Art. 3 der EMRK zu genügen, ist aber eine jedem Inhaftierten zur Verfügung stehende Grundfläche von mindestens 3 m² zu fordern (so schon EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Oktober 2009, Beschwerde Nr. 17885/04, (...) ./. Polen, Tz. 123; bekräftigt u.a. im Urteil vom 1. Juli 2014, Beschwerde Nr. 46546/12, (...) ./. Rumänien, Tz. 56).