Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DERMANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Nevertheless, in the light of Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the individual to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, the person's health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI), with the provision of the requisite medical assistance and treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, §§ 64 et seq., Reports 1998-V).

  Furthermore, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Panchenko, cited above, § 93, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  In the applicant's case, however, with the passing of time the courts' reasoning did not evolve to reflect the developing situation and they failed to verify whether this ground remained valid at the advanced stage of the proceedings (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 64, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 20877/04

  TESTA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  In the present case, such an assessment could be obtained from a liver biopsy and relevant blood tests (see Testa v. Croatia, no. 20877/04, § 52, 12 July 2007).

• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 42, ECHR 2006-X, and Kudla, cited above, § 110).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Nevertheless, as said above, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured (see Kudla, cited above, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  In order to establish whether the applicant received the requisite medical assistance while in detention, it is crucial to determine whether the State authorities provided him with sufficient medical supervision for a timely diagnosis and treatment of his illnesses (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 102, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  However, when assessing the reasonableness of the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Court should make a global evaluation of the accumulated periods of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 36-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  In exceptional cases, where the state of a detainee's health is wholly incompatible with detention, Article 3 may require his or her release under certain conditions (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI, and Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  The burden of proof in these matters should not be reversed by making it incumbent on the detained person to demonstrate the existence of reasons warranting release (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 85, 26 July 2001).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  With the passage of time the authorities must examine this issue with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207, and Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 9870/07

  POGHOSSIAN c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2018 - 2361/05

  VRENCEV CONTRE LA SERBIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 37214/05

  BARKANYI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER v. CROATIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  SINISTAJ v. MONTENEGRO ant 2 other applications

  The sixth applicant submitted that there was no effective remedy in this regard and relied on Đermanović v. Serbia (no. 48497/06, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  [ENG]

  The Government referred in this respect to the case of Ä�ermanovic v. Serbia (no. 48497/06, § 59, 23 February 2010), in which the Court refused to hold the State liable for a deterioration in the applicant's health condition which had been caused by the latter's own self-harming behaviour.
• EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 43674/16

  RADONJIC AND ROMIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has previously found a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention due to the length of the applicants' detention on remand in a number of cases against Serbia (see Vrenčev v. Serbia, no. 2361/05, 23 September 2008; Đermanović v. Serbia, no. 48497/06, 23 February 2010; Lakatoš and Others v. Serbia, no. 3363/08, 7 January 2014; Grujović v. Serbia, no. 25381/12, 21 July 2015; and Stevan Petrović v. Serbia, nos.

• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  BULATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  However, the relevant legislation does not provide for a complaints procedure - before a court or an administrative authority - which would satisfy the effectiveness requirement in respect of the applicant's complaints (see paragraph 73 above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Ä�ermanovic v. Serbia, no. 48497/06, § 41, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  [ENG]

  To conclude, the relevant domestic authorities failed in their duty to account for the medical condition of the detained applicant; they also failed to screen the applicant for HCV; most importantly, the Government's reaction to the applicant's diagnosis of HCV was belated and inadequate (see, a contrario, Ä�ermanovic v. Serbia, no. 48497/06, §§ 58, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 15914/11

  NASKOVIC v. SERBIA

  It is further noted that the present case is clearly distinguishable from the Stojanovic case, which involved, inter alia, administrative practices in breach of the Convention and the application of legislation which had been in force prior to the adoption of the Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions Act 2005, as well as the �ermanovic case, which concerned a detainee (pritvorenik) in an ongoing criminal case, not a convicted prisoner (osuđenik) such as the applicant (Stojanovic v. Serbia, no. 34425/04, 19 May 2009, and �ermanovic v. Serbia, no. 48497/06, 23 February 2010; see also Article 245 at paragraph 27 above).
• EGMR, 14.02.2018 - 2361/05

  VRENCEV CONTRE LA SERBIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  48497/06.
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 32697/10

  [FRE]

  Au regard des éléments du dossier, elle estime que rien ne permet de douter de la volonté des instances d'enquête d'élucider les faits et de s'assurer que le dysfonctionnement rencontré n'était ni intentionnel ni permanent (voir également dans le même sens, Ä�ermanovic c. Serbie, no 48497/06, §§ 60 et 61, 23 Février 2010).