Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  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) (Substantive aspect) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03

  NAYDYON v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  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, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  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, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  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, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  It rather imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005, and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  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, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  A lack of appropriate medical care and, more generally, the detention in inappropriate conditions of a person who is ill, may in principle amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see, for example, Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000­VII, and Helhal v. France, no. 10401/12, § 48, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  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, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  It rather imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005, and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  In any event, the Court reiterates that a single case cited by the Government is insufficient to show the existence of settled domestic practice that would prove the effectiveness of a remedy (see Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Varga and Others v. Hungary, nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13, § 53, 10 March 2015).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's conduct (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 48309/19

  LANIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds (see Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan, no. 59620/14, § 138, 2 June 2016, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65567/13

  YIZHACHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Furthermore, in the context of detention, a patient's specific motives for refusing to accept medical assistance should be examined to establish if there are any special circumstances which may engage the State's responsibility for not providing medical assistance (see Holomiov, cited above, § 119, where the applicant's refusal to accept medical treatment was part of a protest against the inadequate conditions of his treatment in prison, and Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan, no. 59620/14, § 148, 2 June 2016, where the Court did not attach great importance to the detainee's refusals to be seen by doctors, taking into account the considerable amount of time that she had not been provided with adequate medical assistance in detention and the fact that the refusal was a protest against that lack of medical assistance).