Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 of the Convention does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov, cited above, § 95; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 of the Convention (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken the protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161); it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right of individual petition and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03

  NAYDYON v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  In the absence of such an explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see, for instance, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002, and Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  In the absence of such an explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see, for instance, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002, and Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  Having referred to the general principles laid down by the Court in a number of judgments concerning the standards of medical care of detainees (see Aleksanyan, cited above; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, ECHR 2002-IX; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI), the Government stressed that the applicant had received comprehensive medical care in detention.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  According to the Court's established case-law, a respondent State's failure to comply with an interim measure entails a violation of the right of individual application (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, § 125, and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 222, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  VERBINT v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA