Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLUBAR v. CROATIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GOLUBAR v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05

  VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The Court reiterates in this respect that even if Article 3 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 part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 61, 5 April 2011).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  That standard should be "compatible with the human dignity" of a detainee, but should also take into account "the practical demands of imprisonment" (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The Court reiterates in this respect that even if Article 3 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 part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 61, 5 April 2011).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  However, Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a person on health grounds or to place him in a civil hospital to enable him to obtain specific medical treatment (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 93, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The Court reiterates that, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 4312/13

  TARRICONE c. ITALIE

  Si ce niveau doit être « compatible avec la dignité humaine'du détenu, il doit aussi tenir compte des « exigences pratiques de l'emprisonnement'(Golubar c. Croatie, no 21951/15, § 41, 2 mai 2017, et Blokhin, précité, § 138).