Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WIKTORKO v. POLAND

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 14612/02

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  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 gender, age and state of health of the victim (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-01, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  Even single instances of strip-searching have been found to amount to degrading treatment in view of the manner in which the strip search was carried out, the possibility that its aim was to humiliate and debase and the lack of justification (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  In cases where an individual has an arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V, and Egmez v. Cyprus, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

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

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  What is more, the procedural requirements of Article 3 go beyond the preliminary investigation stage; the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must meet the requirements of the prohibition enshrined in Article 3. While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 95 - 96, ECHR 2004-XII), Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104-109, ECHR 2000-VII; and Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336, and Krastanov, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see, among others, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 68-78, ECHR 2000-XII; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, §§ 52 and 53, 30 September 2004).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see, among others, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 68-78, ECHR 2000-XII; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, §§ 52 and 53, 30 September 2004).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  What is more, the procedural requirements of Article 3 go beyond the preliminary investigation stage; the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must meet the requirements of the prohibition enshrined in Article 3. While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 95 - 96, ECHR 2004-XII), Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104-109, ECHR 2000-VII; and Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  According to the Court's established case-law, when an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of agents of the State, it is the duty of the national authorities to carry out "an effective official investigation" capable of establishing the facts and identifying and punishing those responsible (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 30 and 31, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts), and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports, § 102).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  They should be carried out in an appropriate manner with due respect for human dignity and for a legitimate purpose (Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 166-176, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts); Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, § 42, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 12350/04

  WAINWRIGHT c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 56195/00

  KRUMPEL AND KRUMPELOVA v. SLOVAKIA

• BVerfG, 24.07.2018 - 2 BvR 309/15

  Fixierung in psychiatrischer Unterbringung: Richtervorbehalt erforderlich?

  a) Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte misst die Fixierung psychisch Kranker an Art. 3 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) (vgl. EGMR , Jalloh v. Germany, Urteil vom 11. Juli 2006, Nr. 54810/00, §§ 79, 106; EGMR, Wiktorko v. Poland, Urteil vom 31. März 2009, Nr. 14612/02, § 55), der ein absolutes Verbot von Folter und unmenschlicher oder entwürdigender Behandlung beinhaltet (vgl. EGMR , Labita v. Italy, Urteil vom 6. April 2000, Nr. 26772/95, § 119; EGMR , Kudla v. Poland, Urteil vom 26. Oktober 2000, Nr. 30210/96, § 90; stRspr), das unabhängig vom Verhalten des Betroffenen besteht (vgl. EGMR, Raninen v. Finland, Urteil vom 16. Dezember 1997, Nr. 152/1996/771/972, § 55; EGMR , Labita v. Italy, Urteil vom 6. April 2000, Nr. 26772/95, § 119; EGMR , Kudla v. Poland, Urteil vom 26. Oktober 2000, Nr. 30210/96, § 90; EGMR, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, Urteil vom 5. April 2005, Nr. 54825/00, § 79; stRspr).

  Für das Anlegen von Fixierungsgurten bei aggressivem Verhalten des Betroffenen sei daher Voraussetzung, dass Gesundheit und Wohlbefinden des Betroffenen regelmäßiger Kontrolle unterlägen und die Fixierung notwendig und auch in ihrer Dauer verhältnismäßig sei (EGMR, Wiktorko v. Poland, Urteil vom 31. März 2009, Nr. 14612/02, § 55; EGMR, Bures v. The Czech Republic, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2012, Nr. 37679/08, § 86).

• BVerfG, 19.01.2023 - 2 BvR 1719/21

  Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde eines Sicherungsverwahrten gegen die …

  Das Wohlergehen der gefesselten Person ist regelmäßig zu überprüfen (vgl. EGMR, Wiktorko v. Poland, Urteil vom 31. März 2009, Nr. 14612/02, § 55) und der Einsatz der Fesseln ist von der anordnenden Instanz vollständig zu dokumentieren (vgl. EGMR, Bures v. The Czech Republic, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2012, Nr. 37679/08, § 103).