Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEFANIAK v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STEFANIAK v. POLAND

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  In considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 26, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  The authorities must also ensure that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition â?? supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy that seeks, to the extent possible, to cure the detainee's diseases or to avoid aggravating them, rather than to address them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 114, 29 November 2007; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006; Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, § 63, 23 July 2013; Pozaic v. Croatia, no. 5901/13, § 53, 4 December 2014; and Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, § 135, 11 December 2014).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  There are three particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of an applicant's health with his stay in detention: (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant (see Sakkopoulos v. Greece, no. 61828/00, § 39, 15 January 2004; and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 94, 28 March 2006).

 
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  The authorities must also ensure that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition â?? supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy that seeks, to the extent possible, to cure the detainee's diseases or to avoid aggravating them, rather than to address them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 114, 29 November 2007; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006; Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, § 63, 23 July 2013; Pozaic v. Croatia, no. 5901/13, § 53, 4 December 2014; and Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, § 135, 11 December 2014).
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 61828/00

  SAKKOPOULOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  There are three particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of an applicant's health with his stay in detention: (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant (see Sakkopoulos v. Greece, no. 61828/00, § 39, 15 January 2004; and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 94, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  The authorities must also ensure that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition â?? supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy that seeks, to the extent possible, to cure the detainee's diseases or to avoid aggravating them, rather than to address them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 114, 29 November 2007; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006; Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, § 63, 23 July 2013; Pozaic v. Croatia, no. 5901/13, § 53, 4 December 2014; and Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, § 135, 11 December 2014).
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 42184/09

  KUSHNIR v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  The authorities must also ensure that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition â?? supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy that seeks, to the extent possible, to cure the detainee's diseases or to avoid aggravating them, rather than to address them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 114, 29 November 2007; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006; Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, § 63, 23 July 2013; Pozaic v. Croatia, no. 5901/13, § 53, 4 December 2014; and Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, § 135, 11 December 2014).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 5901/13

  POZAIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  The authorities must also ensure that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition â?? supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy that seeks, to the extent possible, to cure the detainee's diseases or to avoid aggravating them, rather than to address them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 114, 29 November 2007; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006; Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, § 63, 23 July 2013; Pozaic v. Croatia, no. 5901/13, § 53, 4 December 2014; and Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, § 135, 11 December 2014).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 46857/06

  ENGEL v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 56941/11

  In considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 26, 20 May 2010).