Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STRAZIMIRI v. ALBANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STRAZIMIRI v. ALBANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  As regards the deprivation of liberty of individuals suffering from mental disorders, an individual cannot be considered to be of "unsound mind" and deprived of his or her liberty unless the following three minimum conditions have been satisfied: firstly, she or he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  As regards the deprivation of liberty of individuals suffering from mental disorders, an individual cannot be considered to be of "unsound mind" and deprived of his or her liberty unless the following three minimum conditions have been satisfied: firstly, she or he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  The Court reiterates that findings of a violation in its judgments are essentially declaratory (see, amongst other authorities, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 61, ECHR 2009, and W.D. v. Belgium, no. 73548/13, § 167, 6 September 2016).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  The respondent State, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  In accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, a finding of a violation imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction under Article 41, but also to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects (see, amongst others, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V; Dybeku, cited above, § 63; and S??awomir Musia?? v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 106, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 73548/13

  W.D. c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  The Court reiterates that findings of a violation in its judgments are essentially declaratory (see, amongst other authorities, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 61, ECHR 2009, and W.D. v. Belgium, no. 73548/13, § 167, 6 September 2016).
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04

  GRORI v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  At the same time, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospect of success (see Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 108, 7 July 2009).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  The Court finds that, having regard to the continuous nature of the applicant's confinement in the Prison Hospital, where he has been kept since 2011, the persistent conditions of detention, the lack of adequate medical treatment of which he complains and the pending judicial proceedings, his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 refer to a "continuing situation" (see, for example, Alimov v. Turkey, no. 14344/13, § 57-62, 6 September 2016; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07 and 5 Others, § 75, 17 January 2012; and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 116 ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  77568/01,178/02 and 505/02, 4 December 2007).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 14344/13

  ALIMOV v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  The Court finds that, having regard to the continuous nature of the applicant's confinement in the Prison Hospital, where he has been kept since 2011, the persistent conditions of detention, the lack of adequate medical treatment of which he complains and the pending judicial proceedings, his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 refer to a "continuing situation" (see, for example, Alimov v. Turkey, no. 14344/13, § 57-62, 6 September 2016; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07 and 5 Others, § 75, 17 January 2012; and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 116 ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 35943/18

  PINTUS c. ITALIE

  La Cour en a conclu que l'absence d'une stratégie thérapeutique globale pour la prise en charge d'un détenu atteint de troubles mentaux peut s'analyser en un « abandon thérapeutique'contraire à l'article 3 (Strazimiri c. Albanie, no 34602/16, §§ 108-112, 21 janvier 2020, et Sy, précité, § 80).
• EGMR, 09.01.2024 - 30138/21

  MIRANDA MAGRO v. PORTUGAL

  In this connection, the Court observes that the Government in the present case did not provide any evidence, such as medical reports or a copy of the applicant's individual therapeutic plan, attesting that he had received individualised, continuous and specialised care and follow-up treatment, and that appropriate therapy and medication had been prescribed and provided to him (compare Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, § 108, 21 January 2020).
• EGMR, 24.01.2022 - 11791/20

  SY c. ITALIE

  La Cour estime que, pour autant qu'ils concernent la seconde période de détention à Rebibbia NC, les griefs ne sont pas tardifs étant donné qu'à la date de l'introduction de la requête le requérant s'y trouvait encore détenu (Strazimiri c. Albanie, no 34602/16, § 94, 21 janvier 2020).

 
• EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 43393/18

  BUJOR c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour considère que cette instabilité et ces fluctuations de l'état de santé de l'intéressé étaient de nature à alerter les autorités, qui devaient s'interroger sur la mise en place d'une stratégie médicale plus adéquate capable de répondre de manière cohérente et efficace à la maladie mentale de l'intéressé (voir, mutatis mutandis, Rooman, précité, § 164, Rivière c. France, no 33834/03, §§ 74 et 75, 11 juillet 2006, et Strazimiri c. Albanie, no 34602/16, § 108, 21 janvier 2020).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 26947/09

  MURADU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in Article 5 § 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the other paragraphs has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Convention institutions (see Stanev v. Bulgaria[GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012, and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, § 132, 21 January 2020).
• EGMR - 17639/23 (anhängig)

  YASHYN v. POLAND

  (ii) Did the domestic authorities adequately examine the applicant's state of mental health and ensure a comprehensive therapeutic strategy (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 146-47, 31 January 2019, and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, §§ 103-12, 21 January 2020)?.
• EGMR - 15994/20 (anhängig)

  ALBERTANI v. ITALY

  (b) Did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during her detention in prison (Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 146-147, 31 January 2019 and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, §§ 103-112, 21 January 2020)?.
• EGMR - 27844/23 (anhängig)

  PIANTANIDA v. ITALY

  (b) did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 146-47, 31 January 2019, and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, §§ 103-12, 21 January 2020)?.
• EGMR - 35292/23 (anhängig)

  S.C. v. ITALY

  (b) did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during the detention period (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 46-47, 31 January 2019, and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, §§ 103-12, 21 January 2020)?.
• EGMR - 27850/23 (anhängig)

  MESHAU v. ITALY

  (b) did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment during his detention in prison (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 146-47, 31 January 2019, and Strazimiri v. Albania, no. 34602/16, §§ 103-12, 21 January 2020)?.