text stringlengths 332 3.61k | label int64 0 12 |
|---|---|
33. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officer, R., and that there had been no adequate or effective investigation of his complaints. The applicant further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of effective remedies for his complaints. The relevant Articles read as follows: | 5 |
39. The applicant submitted that his unlawful stay in a strict-regime prison for a duration of eighteen days amounted to treatment prohibited under Article 3. In support of his argument he contended that during this period he had been deprived of the prisoners’ rights to which he was entitled under domestic law. In particular, he had had to spend all day, except one hour, in a cell with other eleven inmates, breathing their smoke, although he himself did not smoke. The applicant also submitted that his stay in Daugavpils Prison had coincided with the period when the conditions in that prison were not in compliance with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, as the Court had recognised in Savičs v. Latvia (no. 17892/03, 27 November 2012); however, contrary to the circumstances in Savičs, in the instant case the applicant had been held in those conditions without any lawful basis. | 5 |
86. The Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant, arguing that it was excessive in light of the Court's case-law. They submitted that the case-law cited by the applicant dealt with situations which had nothing in common with his case in terms of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the effects on the applicant and the attitude of the State authorities. The authorities had taken all measures to accommodate the applicant's needs and his treatment had not reached the minimum threshold under Article <mask> of the Convention. Any finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention should constitute of itself just satisfaction. | 5 |
54. The applicant complained that the procedural response to the ill‑treatment to which he had been subjected had not been adequate. In particular, he took issue with the penalties imposed on the three officers who had ill-treated him, arguing that their leniency did not correspond to the seriousness of their act. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides: | 5 |
32. The Government contended that the applicant failed to substantiate his allegations of an alleged violation of his rights under Article <mask> of the Convention. They further accepted that indeed the recreation yards in the wing where the applicant had been held were not equipped with toilets and running water. However, prisoners who needed to use the toilet were taken by the prison guards to the toilets inside their cells if they asked. In addition, prisoners were allowed to carry bottles of water with them in the yard. | 5 |
34. The Government considered the applicant’s allegations to be baseless. According to the Government, when the applicant and his fellow demonstrators had refused to obey the police officers’ orders to disperse, they had been warned not to violate the law. However, when the group had insisted on continuing with their protests which impeded the circulation of the traffic, the police officers had formed a cordon around them and arrested them. No struggle had taken place between the police and the demonstrators. When the applicant had resisted the police officers’ attempts to arrest him, the police officers had had to use force which could not be considered excessive. Since the use of force by the police officers had been proportionate to the aim of maintaining public order, there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
31. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that the police officers had not denied the use of physical force. Nevertheless, the force used in the instant case had been proportionate and not excessive. In particular they referred to the trial court's decision that the facts established during the investigation had given no reason to conclude that the police officers had abused their powers and had acted against Polish law. | 5 |
72. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention about the degrading effect of the allegedly arbitrarily imposed disciplinary penalties in Jelgavas, Grīvas and Daugavpils prisons. The Court observes that even though it seems that the applicant has on occasion challenged the legal and factual basis of the individual penalties (see, for example, paragraphs 13 and 17 above) and his complaint in that regard has been dealt with, albeit summarily, by the Daugavpils Court on 8 February 2001 (see above, paragraph 32), it appears that the first time he raised a complaint about their degrading effect was in his application to the Court. The applicant having failed to show that he has tried to approach national authorities with any comparable complaint, the Court cannot speculate as to the existence or lack of national remedies. Accordingly it declares the applicant’s complaint about the allegedly degrading effect of the disciplinary penalties inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. | 5 |
30. The applicant complained that on 5 December 1999 he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into those events, amounting to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s negative and positive obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows: | 5 |
35. The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment had been carefully checked by the domestic authorities and had been reasonably found unsubstantiated. The conclusions reached by the domestic authorities were confirmed by relevant evidence which the applicant failed to refute. Referring to the inquiry set up by the domestic authorities after the communication of this complaint in 2009 (see paragraphs 28-29 above), the Government put forward a version of the facts in which the applicant sustained the injuries prior to his arrest as a result of several falls from his own height. The Government summed up that there had therefore been no violation of either the substantive or the procedural aspect of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
19. The applicant finally argued that he had not been hospitalised with a view to treating his ear infection and the injury to his abdomen. The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate his assertion that he needed hospitalisation for his condition. Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant was taken to a hospital in order to treat the wound to his abdomen (see paragraph 7 above). At the same time, it appears from the documents in the case-file that the applicant was seen by doctors and medication was prescribed which he eventually received. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this part of the complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded, and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. | 5 |
22. The applicant invoking Article <mask> of the Convention complained about a refusal to allow him to visit his seriously injured daughter in the hospital and the delay in examining his appeal against this decision. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 (see, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 88, 6 December 2007), which in so far as relevant provides: | 5 |
54. The Government submitted that the applicant failed to produce any conclusive evidence showing that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. The medical expert opinion of 30 October 2003 did not exclude the possibility that the applicant suffered his injuries on 16 October 2003, i.e. prior to his arrest and during the public disorder in the aftermath of the elections. The Government also argued that in any event, according to the forensic report, the applicant's injuries did not seriously affect his health. Therefore, the alleged ill-treatment did not attain the minimum level of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
70. The applicant complained that his extradition to Kazakhstan would subject him to a risk of ill-treatment. He formulated his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention and vaguely referred to Article 6 of the Convention without making a specific detailed complaint in this respect. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
18. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security. | 5 |
104. The applicant submitted observations concerning Y.C.’s medical care in relation to his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention that were similar to those that he submitted in relation to his Article 2 complaint (see paragraph 75 above). He added that the police had not recognised that Y.C. had already been on hunger strike for several days before he had announced it. Therefore, during these days the authorities had not followed the applicable regulations. Intensive medical care should have been provided in the days before Y.C.’s death, as he had been in a life-threatening condition because of the inaccurate calculation of his critical body weight. Instead, he had been placed alone in a security cell. The applicant concluded that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated because of the inhuman situation that Y.C. had been in. | 5 |
63. The Government submitted that the cells in which the applicant had been detained were sufficiently heated and ventilated; tap water was available, and the toilet was separated by a wall from the rest of the cell. Each detainee had a bed and bed linen and could have a shower once a week. Detainees were allowed to bring their own television set. Food was sufficient and corresponded to sanitary and nutritional norms. Detainees also enjoyed an hour’s exercise each day. Moreover, the applicant never complained about the conditions of his detention while actually detained, which confirmed the absence of a violation of his rights. His application to the Court did not contain any evidence in support of the complaint, which consisted of declarations, while reference to the findings of the CPT could not, in itself and without reference to particular circumstances applying to the applicant, lead to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
34. The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that he had not been provided with the adequate medical care in the remand prison, and that the conditions of his detention and treatment in the colony’s medical unit did not correspond to his needs. His grievances fall to be examined Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads: | 5 |
46. The Government submitted that when deciding on the applicant’s pre-trial detention the authorities had at all times relied on the medical experts’ opinions and took their recommendations into account. In addition, the authorities assisted the applicant with the relevant medical treatment both inside and outside the detention facility. The Government were of the opinion that the quality of medical care provided to the applicant was adequate in view of his condition. All doctors working in the Bytom Detention Centre were specialists in their fields of medicine. Even after the applicant was placed in a regular cell he was frequently examined by the doctors in the hospital ward. He attended 17 appointments. In addition, when it was impossible to provide the applicant with certain medical services in the hospital ward, such services were provided to him by a relevant public health establishment. The Government concluded that the applicant had received relevant medical assistance (for example he had a valve implant operation) and the authorities had fulfilled their positive obligation deriving from Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
40. The Government further submitted that should the Court find that the applicant had maintained his victim status and had exhausted domestic remedies, his complaints about lack of medical care, his solitary confinement in facility no. IZ-47/1, and the conditions of detention in the correctional facility were in any event manifestly ill-founded. In particular, the Government noted that after his conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment the applicant had been transferred to a cell where he had been detained alone from 10 December 2008 until 8 October 2010. That decision had been taken in full compliance with Russian law, which required prisoners to be detained separately from the rest of the inmate population. The decision had had the purpose of guaranteeing the security of the other detainees in facility IZ-47/1. The applicant had been kept in conditions which complied with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
65. The applicant complained that the pre-trial investigation and criminal proceedings concerning the circumstances of the accident had not been effective. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that this complaint falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads: | 5 |
29. The Government submitted that the applicant’s description of conditions of his detention was not sufficiently detailed. Alternatively, they argued that in view of the particular circumstances of the case and of the length of the applicant’s detention, the treatment to which he had been subjected had not attained the threshold of severity required by Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
79. The Government disagreed with these allegations and argued that the investigation had not established that Mr Abu Aliyev had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention by State agents. Likewise, since it had not been established by the domestic investigation that Mr Abu Aliyev had been abducted by State agents, the applicant's mental suffering could not be imputable to the State. | 5 |
52. The Government submitted that, should the Court find a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, it should make an award only in respect of the procedural aspect of the applicant’s complaint. They added that he still had a chance of obtaining compensation domestically, depending on the outcome of the on-going criminal investigation. In any event, the amount sought was exaggerated in the light of similar case-law. | 5 |
48. The applicant complained that his continued detention, in spite of his deteriorating medical condition, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. He referred, in particular, to his advanced age, prior disability and difficulty in walking, the herniotomy performed on 10 March 1998, the stroke suffered on 28 January 2000 and the fear and anguish he felt that he would die in detention as a result of the allegedly inadequate medical capacity of the facilities where he had been detained. | 5 |
33. The Government did not raise any objection as regards the admissibility of this complaint. However, as the domestic courts have already acknowledged the applicant’s ill-treatment, the Court considers it necessary to satisfy itself that the applicant can be considered as a victim within the meaning of the Convention in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
132. The applicant submitted that the failure to provide him with adequate medical care, such as proper examination and treatment of his diseases, concealment of his true state of health, as well as his arbitrary discharge from the hospital and forced attendance at the court hearings despite his poor state of health, all proved that there had been a breach of the Government’s positive obligation to prevent prisoners’ suffering which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. The failure of the Government to provide him with adequate medical care proved that he had received inhuman treatment and the intention of the Government was to create feelings of despair and inferiority in him and to humiliate and belittle him, as well as to prove his vulnerability. Such treatment of the applicant is in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
86. The applicants further relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, submitting that the first applicant had been tortured after his abduction, but that no effective investigation had been carried out on that account. The applicants also claimed that, as a result of Valid Dzhabrailov's death and the State's failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
38. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-24/1 in Krasnoyarsk from 12 October 2004 to 3 June 2008. In particular, he alleged that he had not been afforded sufficient personal space as he had been detained with a large number of inmates, some of whom had been suffering from tuberculosis. As a result, he had contracted tuberculosis. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
52. The Government accepted that, in view of the applicant’s young age, the use of physical force against him had attained the minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. Nonetheless, they submitted that the force used by the police had been used not to threaten or humiliate the applicant but that it had been necessary and proportionate owing to the applicant’s own actions. They noted that it was not disputed that the applicant had initially refused to comply with the officers’ orders and had run away from them. The Government further submitted that several police officers had given consistent statements about the applicant’s violent behaviour during his arrest, and that this justified using physical force against him. They lastly submitted that the police officers could not have known that the applicant was a minor at the time because of his mature appearance and because it was dark. | 5 |
135. The Government maintained that there was no violation of the second applicant’s rights under Article <mask> of the Convention and no violation of the first and third applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, therefore these claims were to be rejected. As regards the remainder of the applicants’ just satisfaction claims the Government submitted that such claims were premature as the investigation at the national level was still pending and the issues of compensation might be resolved by means of national proceedings. | 5 |
65. The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention because he had not lodged his complaint with the domestic courts before lodging his application with the Court. Alternatively, the Government submitted that he had lost his victim status after the Centru District Court had examined his claim for compensation, on 27 June 2007. Finally, the Government argued that the first applicant had also failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 5. In particular, he had lodged a court action on 18 May 2008 claiming compensation for the alleged breach of his Article 5 rights and the proceedings are still pending. | 5 |
57. The Government contended firstly that the applicant had failed to raise before the Court a complaint under the procedural head of Article <mask> of the Convention concerning the length of the procedures for the revocation of his pre-trial detention for medical reasons. They further submitted that the applicant did not contract any disease in detention and that there was no proof that his state of health had deteriorated during his pre-trial detention. Therefore, they concluded that the suffering allegedly experienced by the applicant due to the extension of his pre-trial detention did not reach the minimum level of severity so as to fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention. | 5 |
74. The applicant also invoked Article <mask> of the Convention in respect of the conditions of his detention, including lack of personal space, poor sanitary arrangements, medical assistance, and various actions of the authorities in the Odessa SIZO, in transit to the Kryvyy Rig Colony and upon his arrival to the latter. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedies with respect to the above complaints. The latter provision reads as follows: | 5 |
65. The Government concluded that the applicant had received proper and adequate medical care and treatment. The deterioration in his health had not been caused by detention; that had been a process independent of the prison authorities. What is more, the applicant’s health had not deteriorated irreversibly; the doctors had found that he would be able to return to the detention facility after his surgery. Taking all the above considerations into account the Government invited the Court to find no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
81. The Government maintained that Articles 2 and 3 were not applicable to the circumstances of the present case. As regards Article 2, they argued that the applicants’ lives had never been put at risk in any way. As regards Article <mask> of the Convention, the Government submitted that the requisite level of severity had not been reached since the harassment complained of had mostly been verbal while the injuries the first applicant had sustained on 4 April 2009 had been of a mild nature. They also submitted that the fact that the first applicant had expressed a wish to walk around showed that he had not been traumatised by the events in issue. | 5 |
249. The applicant argued that a positive obligation arose in the present case to protect Ms Rantseva from ill-treatment from private individuals. He contended that the two forensic reports conducted following Ms Rantseva’s death revealed that the explanation of her death did not accord with the injuries recorded. He argued that the witness testimony gathered did not provide a satisfactory response to the question whether there were injuries present on Ms Rantseva’s body prior to her death. Despite this, no investigation was conducted by the Cypriot authorities into whether Ms Rantseva had been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Further, no steps were taken to avoid the risk of ill treatment to Ms Rantseva in circumstances where the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk. Accordingly, in the applicant’s submission, there was a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
93. The applicant noted that the Chamber’s admission that the conditions in most Czech hospitals were questionable, as far as respecting the mother’s choices was concerned, was in fact a very euphemistic way of describing treatment which often attained the level of inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention. In her submission, hospital births in the Czech Republic were associated with a high risk of procedures that did not respect women’s choices and often were even detrimental to their health or the health of the newborn child. In addition, the national courts had repeatedly failed to afford protection where the rights of women had been violated in Czech maternity hospitals. This represented a type of violence which, in the Czech context, was completely ignored and downplayed. | 5 |
49. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in Łowicz Prison had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells with less than 3 square metres of space per person and allowed to spend a very limited time outside the cell, e.g. he had only a one‑hour long outdoor exercise per day and a right to take only one shower per week. | 5 |
293. The Government submitted that there were no records in the Prison's Medical Registers of requests from the applicants for medical assistance. The Government maintained that the applicants received necessary medical treatment and were provided with any required prescription drugs whilst serving their sentences and therefore concluded that Article <mask> of the Convention was not breached. They further stated that the applicants were provided with necessary medical treatment and assistance in general. | 5 |
62. The applicants alleged that there had been a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention on account of the infliction of “torture” on their relatives' bodies, either before or after their deaths. They further complained under the same head about the emotional distress which they had suffered when they had seen the state of the corpses. The applicants lastly contended that the investigation initiated into their complaints had been ineffective. | 5 |
54. The applicants Mr Makhov, Mr Resin (in two cases), Mr Anikanov, Mr Lebetskiy, Mr Gromovoy, Mr Gordeyev, Mr Martirosyan and Mr Vinokhodov complained that the conditions of their detention in the Russian penal facilities or the conditions of transport between them had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article <mask> of the Convention. The Court reiterates that in the absence of an effective remedy for that grievance, the complaint about inadequate conditions of detention or transport should have been introduced within six months of the last day of the applicants’ detention or transport (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013, and Markov and Belentsov v. Russia (dec.), nos. 47696/09 and 79806/12, 10 December 2013). However, the periods complained of had ended more than six months before they lodged their complaints with the Court. The date of the final decision rejecting their claims for compensation cannot be relied upon as resetting the time-limit for their complaints. It follows that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six‑month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. | 5 |
185. The applicant further complained that he had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article <mask> of the Convention in Magadan remand prison IZ‑49/1. Thus, being one-legged he had experienced difficulties in view of the lack of any arrangements for his condition, in particular, on account of receiving food through a window in the door of his cell and carrying it to a table while holding on to crutches, taking a shower while leaning on crutches, using toilet facilities and getting into a car for being transported to court. Furthermore, he had allegedly been denied medical treatment for his urolithiasis. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
174. The Government submitted that the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage in respect of an alleged violation of Article <mask> of the Convention in connection with his conditions of detention on death row and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the ill-treatment were exorbitant. They asked the Court to determine the just satisfaction on an equitable basis, taking into consideration its case-law on similar issues and the economic situation in Ukraine. In addition, they found the applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage in respect of alleged ill-treatment unsubstantiated. | 5 |
34. The applicant complained of inadequate conditions of his detention in Bjelovar Prison from 22 March 2010 to 5 January 2011. In particular, he complained of lack of personal space, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, no prison work, insufficient recreational and educational activities, poor quality food and inadequate medical care. He relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
131. The applicants relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, claiming that Ibragim Tsurov had been ill-treated by Russian servicemen and that there was no effective investigation into the ill-treatment. They further complained under this heading that as a result of their relative’s disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads: | 5 |
105. The Government admitted that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the temporary detention cell of the Mozhaiskiy District police station were in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They specified that, while the applicant’s detention in that cell between 30 and 31 July 2013 (date of the judgment of the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow, see paragraph 31 above) was in compliance with domestic law requirements, the remainder of the detention period between 31 July 2013, after the delivery of the impugned judgment, and 5 August 2013 was not. They admitted that the cell for detaining persons charged with administrative offences was not designed for the detention of foreign nationals in respect of whom administrative removal orders had been issued by the domestic courts. Such persons were supposed to be detained in special detention centres of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation. | 5 |
73. The Government contended that the first applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his complaints had been disproved by the police officers’ reports and statements. The Government further argued that the medical records of 19 and 26 October 2005 suggested that the first applicant could have inflicted the injuries by himself and that at the time they had been inflicted the first applicant had not been “under the jurisdiction of police officers”. According to the Government, the first applicant’s submissions before the domestic authorities regarding the alleged ill-treatment had lacked clarity and consistency and had been rejected as unfounded by the prosecutors and the courts. For the Government, the situation in the first applicant’s case was comparable to that in Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine (no. 38683/06, 15 July 2010). Referring to the Court’s finding that there had been no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its substantive limb in the latter case (see Aleksandr Smirnov, cited above, §§ 54-55), the Government argued that in the present case the origin of the first applicant’s injuries could not be established. | 5 |
28. The Government further submitted that detention conditions in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3 had been adequate. They relied on certificates issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences confirming that the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and that the sanitary, hygienic and temperature conditions had been satisfactory. According to them, the mere fact that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells cannot serve as a basis for finding a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
86. The Government maintained that in general there is no basis for claiming that pre-trial detention in solitary confinement as provided for by Danish law constitutes torture in contravention of Article <mask> of the Convention. More specifically they submitted that the applicant's detention on remand in solitary confinement, which lasted eleven months and fourteen days, was not in breach of the said provision. There had been reasonable grounds for suspecting that the applicant had committed a very serious crime that might have resulted in prolonged imprisonment, and solitary confinement was necessary to prevent the applicant from impeding the police investigation. Moreover, the applicant himself gave rise to a considerable extent to the duration of the pre-trial detention in solitary confinement by maintaining until 26 September 1995 his false statement, as agreed with the other co-accused, PL, and by fabricating false diary notes in support thereof. The solitary confinement had been lifted as soon as the applicant could no longer influence the investigation, for example through communication with the co-accused in order that they harmonise their statements. | 5 |
49. The applicant complained that the authorities in colony no. 8 had not taken steps to safeguard his health and well-being, failing to provide him with adequate medical assistance in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. He also complained under the same Convention provision that the conditions of his detention in the medical colony had been appalling. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
65. The applicant complained that she had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of her sterilisation without her and her representative’s full and informed consent, and that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough, fair and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding her sterilisation. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
109. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant’s transport had been compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention. The prison van had been technically in good order, had been heated and ventilated. It had not been overcrowded. The applicant’s medical record showed that he had been fit to be transported and that he could be transported unaccompanied by a doctor. | 5 |
67. The Government did not argue in their written observations that the Court should not have regard to facts which occurred after the final domestic decision in January 2008. The Court recalls that according to its established case-law under Article <mask> of the Convention, the existence of a risk faced by an applicant in the country to which he is to be expelled is assessed by reference to the facts which were known or ought to have been known at the time of the expulsion; in cases where the applicant has not yet been deported, the risk is assessed at the time of the proceedings before the Court (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 133, ECHR 2008‑...). The Court sees no reason to take a different approach to the assessment of the proportionality of a deportation under Article 8 of the Convention and points out in this regard that its task is to assess the compatibility with the Convention of the applicant’s actual expulsion and not of the final expulsion order (see Maslov, cited above, § 93). Any other approach would render the protection of the Convention theoretical and illusory by allowing Contracting States to expel applicants months, even years, after a final order had been made notwithstanding the fact that such expulsion would be disproportionate having regard to subsequent developments. The Government have not explained whether further remedies within the domestic legal system are now available to allow the applicant to challenge his deportation a second time, nor have they suggested that the Court is precluded from examining developments on the basis that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the Court itself to assess the effect of this additional lapse of time on the proportionality of the applicant’s deportation. | 5 |
27. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that that they had been treated in an inhuman and degrading manner. The applicants’ complaints do not concern the material conditions of the Riihimäki prison, nor their isolation as such but rather the use of closed overalls while in isolation. They claim that the use of overalls, especially dirty ones, was degrading. There was no evidence that the applicants had been involved in smuggling drugs into the prison. | 5 |
81. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers following his arrest on 18 September 2001 and that there had been no effective investigation into the matter. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court considers it appropriate, however, to examine the above complaints only under Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
16. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restriction on out-of-cell time, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychiatric support and exposure to violence from other inmates due to insufficient security. | 5 |
83. The applicant maintained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, during his detention in the temporary holding facility of the Kirovskiy District Police Department of the Stavropol Region. As regards the medical expert examination carried out on 7 October 2002, which had not established any injuries on him, the applicant referred to the findings of the District Court in its judgment of 2 May 2006, where it had established that the applicant and his lawyer had not been notified of the investigator’s order that such an examination be carried out until after it had been conducted, and therefore a note on the relevant expert report that the applicant had no comments, questions or objections regarding the experts had been devoid of any legal meaning. | 5 |
150. The applicants complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that the manner in which the bodies of their relatives had been exhibited at the military base constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. They also complained that the prosecutor had not investigated this particular complaint and that they therefore had not had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. | 5 |
39. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that his allegations had not been investigated properly. He referred to Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine these complaints under Article <mask> of the Convention, which is the relevant provision, and which provides as follows: | 5 |
43. The Government claimed that the conditions of the applicant's detention had been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that at all times the applicant had been provided with an individual bed and bedding. The Government referred to the copies of excerpts from the remand prison population register for the period from 18 April 2003 to 10 November 2003. | 5 |
56. The applicant complained that the police had beaten him and threatened him. He complained that the conditions of his detention in the SIZO had been incompatible with the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention, in particular, he was not able to breathe fresh air and the food given to him had not been sufficiently rich in calories. Because the conditions of his detention had been poor he had developed TB while in the SIZO. According to the applicant, he received inadequate medical treatment from February 2003 to June 2005. In particular, he was not given any medications to treat his TB even though he needed them. The applicant invoked Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention. However the Court, which is the master of characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that the present part of the application falls to be examined solely under Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows: | 5 |
86. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in Płock Prisons from 8 August 2003 to 4 June 2007 and from 9 January to 6 February 2008 had fallen short of standards compatible with Article <mask> of the Convention and, in particular, those required for persons in his state of health. He complained that he had been detained in overcrowded cells and had been allowed very limited out-of-cell time, that is to say, he had been permitted only an hour of outdoor exercise per day and only one shower per week. The applicant also complained that he had been afforded inadequate medical care during his detention. Lastly, the applicant claimed that he had been forced to share one of his cells with a schizophrenic inmate with a history of violence. | 5 |
60. The applicant concluded that all of the above circumstances – in particular the insufficient and inadequate medical care and the humiliation resulting from the fact that he had had to ask for assistance from his fellow inmates in order to be able to get to and from the exercise yard – amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
54. The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, it was impossible to determine whether the applicant had been subjected to ill‑treatment while in police custody, given that the inquiry into the applicant's allegations was still pending. They further submitted that the Russian authorities had complied with their positive obligation arising out of Article <mask> of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation in response to his complaint of ill-treatment. The earlier deficiencies in the investigation had been rectified at the domestic level. | 5 |
41. The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. They submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant’s injuries were caused by misconduct on the part of the police officers. In addition, the evidence had led to the conclusion that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted by the rape victim, who had tried to defend herself during the assault. | 5 |
101. The applicant was wanted by the Tajik authorities on account of his alleged involvement in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which he consistently denied. Regard being had to the reports by reputable organisations (see, in particular, paragraphs 73 and 75 above), the Court considers that there are serious reasons to believe in the existence of the practice of persecution of members or supporters of that organisation, whose underlying aims appear to be both religious and political. The Government's reference to the fact that the applicant did not apply for political asylum immediately after his arrival to Russia does not necessarily refute the applicant's allegations of risks of ill-treatment since the protection afforded by Article <mask> of the Convention is in any event broader than that provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi, cited above, § 138). | 5 |
57. The Government argued that the investigation conducted by domestic authorities had met the requirements of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the authorities had conducted a number of investigative actions, interviewing S., G., and the applicant, conducting photo identifications and face-to-face confrontations, ordering medical examinations, and collecting information from the transport company. The applicant was recognised as a victim and informed about the progress of the investigation. | 5 |
29. The applicant submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and that the Voronezh prosecutor had acknowledged the existing overcrowding problem. He did not have an individual sleeping place, which indicated a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention. In addition, he suffered from extreme cold and heat because the mandatory ventilation and heating systems did not function, and from a lack of privacy when using the toilet. | 5 |
48. The Government contended that the conditions under the “special regime” in which the applicant had been detained in both prisons had been applied in accordance with section 167d(1) of the regulations for the implementation of the 1969 Act, and subsequently with section 213 of the newly adopted regulations for the implementation of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009. They also made detailed submissions in respect of the material conditions in which the applicant had been detained in Lovech Prison but not in respect of the conditions in Varna Prison. As regards Lovech Prison, they emphasised that the use of buckets as a toilet had been found by the Court to be in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention only in cases where the applicants had had to relieve themselves in front of other inmates. Given that the applicant in the present case had been locked alone in a cell under the “special regime” for practically the whole period of his detention, he could not claim to be affected by a breach of Article 3 in that respect. They further asserted that a breach of Article 3 of the Convention could only be established if the treatment to which an applicant had been subjected reached the minimum level of severity. This had not been the case, given that the authorities had not aimed at humiliating or debasing the applicant, nor had he shown that his suffering went beyond the inevitable inconvenience of serving a prison sentence. This was true both in respect of the material conditions in which the applicant had been detained and in respect of the restrictions which he had to endure as part of the “special regime”. | 5 |
101. The applicants complained about the conditions in which the bodies of their deceased relatives had been stored during the identification process. They were also dissatisfied with the circumstances of their personal participation in the identification process. According to the applicants, this treatment by the authorities caused them such mental suffering that it amounted to a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention, which provides: | 5 |
33. The Government submitted that as the first applicant did not seek to rely on Article 3 before the domestic courts, he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In the alternative, while the Government did not doubt that the first applicant had suffered distress due to the circumstances in which he found himself, they submitted that the circumstances in issue did not come close to constituting ill-treatment of the severity necessary to engage Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government therefore submitted that the Court should reject as manifestly ill-founded the contention that any of the matters at issue disclosed a violation of Article 3. | 5 |
58. The Government submitted that the injuries alleged by the applicant did not attain the minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. They referred to a number of domestic medical examinations carried out, which had concluded that the applicant had only suffered negligible health impairment and that he had not required any subsequent treatment or sick leave which was due to those injuries. | 5 |
34. The Government pleaded that the applicant had failed to exhaust available effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, they submitted that the applicant had failed to appeal against the refusal to grant him temporary asylum of 26 November 2013. If the applicant had been granted temporary asylum, his extradition would have been suspended or even rescinded. The Government also submitted that the applicant had failed to lodge a cassation appeal under Chapter 48.1 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) against the Supreme Court’s appeal judgment of 25 February 2014 upholding the extradition order. | 5 |
342. The Government repeated their arguments that the applicants had not been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention and their respective complaints were manifestly ill-founded. Accordingly, their claims for the non-pecuniary damage should be rejected. Moreover, the Government, referring to the Court's case-law and the principles thereof, wished to emphasize that an applicant's claims should not serve as a basis for unjustified enrichment. | 5 |
53. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he was ill-treated by police officers during his detention in Korsun-Shevchenkivsky police station in 2003. He also relied on Article 3 in complaining about the material conditions of his detention in various penitentiaries, his placement in a disciplinary cell in September 2005 and his force-feeding during that period, as well as the insufficiency of the medical assistance available to him throughout the entire period of his detention. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
73. The Government contended that the applicant had failed to provide any detailed arguments or evidence in support of his complaints. They further noted that it was an established fact that the applicant had resisted the police prior to his arrest on 16 July 2008 and that legitimate force had been applied to him. This explained the injuries which had been revealed in the examination carried out on 17 July 2008. The Government also referred to a number of other medical examinations of the applicant, namely those of 26 and 30 July, 7 August and 7 November 2008, and 4 February 2009, which had not revealed any injuries. They argued that the present case was similar to that of Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, in which the Court had found no violation of Article <mask> of the Convention under its substantive limb for the absence of conclusive evidence in the case file in support of the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment (no. 38683/06, §§ 52-55, 15 July 2010). | 5 |
62. The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 is three-fold. First, she complained that her husband had been ill-treated upon his detention; second, that no investigation had been carried out by the authorities into this allegation; and third, that she had suffered severe mental distress and anguish in connection with his disappearance. She relied on Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
64. The applicant complained that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, he alleged that he did not receive the necessary medical treatment and assistance for tuberculosis while serving his sentence. He also complained that the conditions of his detention in different penitentiaries were unsatisfactory (the size of the cell in which he was detained, the number of persons in the cell, the bedding and conditions of hygiene, sanitation and ventilation, nutrition, outdoor daily walks, access to natural light and air, etc.). He further alleged that he was not provided with the required prescription drugs, medicines and the necessary medical care and attention for his tuberculosis. Article 3 provides: | 5 |
127. The applicant submitted that the minimum level of severity for Article <mask> of the Convention to apply had been reached in the present case. She had witnessed the condition of her husband’s body ‒ with the legs tied together ‒ after the tissue removal. She had also been pregnant at the time with their second child. The applicant submitted that the unlawful tissue removal amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, since it had caused her shock and suffering. In support, she provided a written statement from her sister, who stated that she had seen Mr Elberts’ body in Sigulda, after it had been transported from the Forensic Centre prior to the funeral, and that his legs had been tied together with dark tape; she had assumed that this had been due to the car accident. | 5 |
40. The applicant complained under Articles 1, 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by prison staff on 3 May 2006, that his complaint in that respect had not been investigated and that there was no effective mechanism for the prevention of ill-treatment. The Court considers that the complaints under Articles 1, 6, 13 and 14 essentially repeat that made under Article <mask> of the Convention. Article 3 reads as follows: | 5 |
53. The Government contended that both the decisions of the Asylum Office of 28 February 2012 and the Asylum Court’s ruling of 24 September 2012 had analysed not only the situation of asylum-seekers including the situation faced by Dublin II returnees, the detention practice and a possible refoulement in general, but also in particular whether the applicant’s transfer in the light of his young age might violate Article <mask> of the Convention. This was evident from the fact that the Asylum Court had set aside the Asylum Office’s decision in the first set of proceedings because of deficiencies in the investigation. The comprehensive examination in the instant case did not reveal any necessity to make use of the right to conduct the proceedings under Article 3 § 2 of the Dublin II Regulation. With reference to the UNHCR’s Note on Dublin Transfers to Hungary of people who have transited through Serbia, published in December 2012, it could no longer be assumed that refugees who had entered Hungarian territory via Serbia were refused having their asylum application examined on the merits. | 5 |
37. The Government contended that the injuries which the applicant had sustained during his arrest and transportation to the police station on 21 October 2010 did not reach the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. In particular, the applicant was a healthy young man and the minor injuries which he had sustained – excoriations on his left elbow, on the left side of his chest and behind his left ear, for which he had received prompt medical assistance – could not have caused him suffering reaching the minimum level of severity to fall under Article 3 of the Convention. | 5 |
60. The applicants submitted that there was no adequate remedy for their complaints about the treatment of Judith McGlinchey in prison, or a remedy that would address the defects in management and policy which allowed the neglect and ill-treatment. Any cause of action in negligence was dependent on establishing the necessary causal link between the negligent acts and the death and/or personal injury, which was not present in this case. The treatment in issue was nonetheless inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention. No other remedies, which could provide compensation and an acknowledgement of the breach, existed. | 5 |
85. The applicants complained that the first applicant had suffered ill-treatment (including sexual abuse together with a subjection to forced labour), as had to a lesser extent the second and third applicants at the hands of the Roma family in Ghislarengo, and that the authorities (especially the Public Prosecutor in Vercelli) had failed to investigate the events adequately. They also complained that the first and third applicants had been ill-treated by Italian police officers during their questioning. Thus, the Italian and Bulgarian authorities’ actions and omissions were contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
44. The Government submitted that the physical force and special means, such as handcuffs, which had been used on the applicant during his arrest fell outside the scope of Article 3 for two reasons. Firstly, the injuries did not result in a deterioration of his health or cause any lasting consequences. Secondly, the police officers did not use physical force to cause suffering to the applicant or to humiliate him; they merely fulfilled their duties, whereas the applicant resisted them. The use of force did not pursue any other goals, such as, for instance, obtaining a confession. The Government emphasised that the applicant had disobeyed the lawful demands of the police officers and that they had used lawful and reasonable measures for putting an end to his unlawful conduct. Finally, the Government submitted that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been carefully reviewed by the domestic authorities in compliance with Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
73. The Government did not consider that Article <mask> of the Convention had been breached. They pointed out that on his arrival in prison on 4 March 2013 the applicant had already been suffering from a disease which would have fatal outcome in the short term owing to the metastases spreading to his skeleton. They further submitted that neither the Institute of Forensic Medicine nor the doctors had imposed on the authorities any obligation to place the applicant permanently in a civilian hospital (see paragraph 14 above). | 5 |
45. The Government further argued that the applicants had not exhausted all the available remedies since they could have claimed damages against the State Treasury under Article 417 of the Civil Code. In the civil proceedings the court would have to establish whether the allegations of ill-treatment were well-founded and thus to determine whether there had been a breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. The Government stressed that the civil courts were not bound by the findings reached in the criminal investigation. | 5 |
32. The applicant submitted that his detention at the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre had not had a proper legal basis and that it had been entirely arbitrary. He noted in particular that following the judgment of the Court in Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 36370/08, § 28, 13 April 2010), where it found that there would be a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention if he were to be removed to Iran or Iraq, it was clear that there would be no further deportation proceedings against him. He had continued, nevertheless, to be kept in detention after the aforementioned judgment. | 5 |
80. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow from 29 October 2002 to 20 December 2003 and on the premises of the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow. He also complained about the conditions of his transport to and from the courthouse. He referred to Article <mask> of the Convention, which reads as follows: | 5 |
28. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by the police during his detention and that he had not been provided with food and water between 25 and 27 April 2006. He also complained of the failure of the domestic authorities to investigate properly his allegations of ill-treatment. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: | 5 |
180. The Government argued that the applicant should have pleaded the State’s vicarious liability for the patron and/or manager. However, the Government mainly relied on two other remedies. In the first place, they referred to an action claiming that the primary-education system, foreseen by Article 42 of the Constitution, breached her unenumerated constitutional right to bodily integrity (the constitutional tort action). Secondly, they argued that she could have continued her claim in negligence in her appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that the State had failed to structure the primary-education system so as to protect her from abuse. This was her complaint under Article <mask> of the Convention. The High Court had summarily dismissed (“non-suited”) her claims because she had failed to adduce any evidence: indeed, her own expert (Professor Ferguson, see paragraph 24 above) had advised her against litigating on the basis of a lack of relevant awareness of risk on the part of the State. It was therefore disingenuous to argue that she should now be excused from appealing because she had been non-suited on evidential grounds. In any event, the Government maintained that certain domestic case-law indicated that a non-suit on evidential grounds was appealable and, further, that she could have appealed the non-suit because the High Court gave no clear reasons for that decision and because it failed to address her negligence claim separately. | 5 |
83. The Government argued that it had not been proven in the present case that the applicant had been treated in breach of Article <mask> of the Convention. They maintained that the resort to physical force by the officers had been strictly necessary due to the applicant’s behaviour. The police actions were not planned in advance but were provoked by the applicant’s resistance. It is true that the applicant suffered certain bodily injuries but he could not be considered to have suffered intensely, either mentally or emotionally. As regards the civil courts’ finding that the officers had acted unlawfully and abused their powers, the Government stressed that this had been established in the context of the civil liability. | 5 |
188. The applicants submitted that Italy’s interceptions of persons on the high seas were not in accordance with the law and were not subject to a review of their lawfulness by a national authority. For that reason, the applicants had been deprived of any opportunity of lodging an appeal against their return to Libya and alleging a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. | 5 |
91. The applicant argued that her allegations of a violation of Article 3 in respect of Mr Sharani Askharov were supported by the fact that other men detained on 18 May 2001 who had subsequently been released had sustained serious injuries as a result of torture. She claimed that the Government had failed to produce any evidence that could refute her allegations. The applicant also maintained her complaint that she herself had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article <mask> of the Convention because of the anguish and distress she had suffered as a result of her husband’s disappearance. | 5 |
31. The Government pointed out that the applicant had already been awarded damages in the domestic proceedings on account of the poor living conditions in Lovech Prison for the period from 8 March 2000 to 27 October 2004. They argued that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as it had been open for him to seek damages in respect of his remaining stay in that prison. Furthermore, the Government were of the view that the suffering inflicted on the applicant had not reached the minimum level of severity required under Article <mask> of the Convention. Lastly, they pointed out that following a refurbishment of Lovech Prison in the autumn of 2008 the cells had been equipped with sanitary facilities. | 5 |
66. The Government submitted that the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected had not attained the minimum level of severity necessary to fall within the scope of Article <mask> of the Convention. As regards the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the applicant and the effects of the treatment to which she had been subjected, the Government noted that the violence had not been premeditated or continuous, and that the fact that the applicant had been involved in a physical confrontation had stripped the situation of any degrading motivation. Furthermore, it had not been proved “beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant had been subjected to acts in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The deterioration of her health had been as a result of the applicant’s previous health problems and not as a result of the confrontation between the applicant and S.N. | 5 |
88. The Government submitted that the applicant had not substantiated his claim for pecuniary damage. They further submitted that the amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive and unfounded, and referred to several cases of the Court in which the applicants had been awarded non-pecuniary damages ranging from EUR 2,000 to EUR 5,000 for violations of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article <mask> of the Convention. | 5 |
31. The applicant complained under Article <mask> of the Convention that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality inflicting on him great physical and mental suffering which amounted to torture or inhuman and/or degrading treatment. Furthermore, he alleged that he was a victim of a procedural violation of the above Article since the prosecuting authorities had failed to proceed with an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the police officers responsible. Article 3 reads as follows: | 5 |
95. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention in the SIZO medical unit, in particular, the lack of glass in the window of his cell and the quality of the food provided by the SIZO. He also complained that the conditions of his transportation amounted to a violation of Article <mask> of the Convention because he was not transported in medically equipped vehicles. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had not had an effective remedy in that respect. The applicant also complained that he had been constantly handcuffed while in the municipal hospitals. | 5 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.