Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 35161/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,27330
EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 35161/03 (https://dejure.org/2012,27330)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.07.2012 - 35161/03 (https://dejure.org/2012,27330)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Juli 2012 - 35161/03 (https://dejure.org/2012,27330)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27330) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LEITENDORFS v. LATVIA

    Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 2, A... rt. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 7 Abs. 2, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 35, Art. 53, Art. 57 MRK
    Inadmissible (englisch)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

    MELNIK v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 35161/03
    The adequacy of the medical assistance is examined by taking into account various elements, such as, inter alia, timely diagnostics and treatment (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006); and, where necessary, regular and systematic supervision aimed at preventing the aggravation of the prisoner's health condition (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and, more recently, Krivosejs v. Latvia, no. 45517/04, § 71, 17 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 35161/03
    The adequacy of the medical assistance is examined by taking into account various elements, such as, inter alia, timely diagnostics and treatment (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006); and, where necessary, regular and systematic supervision aimed at preventing the aggravation of the prisoner's health condition (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and, more recently, Krivosejs v. Latvia, no. 45517/04, § 71, 17 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 45517/04

    KRIVOSEJS v. LATVIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 35161/03
    The adequacy of the medical assistance is examined by taking into account various elements, such as, inter alia, timely diagnostics and treatment (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006); and, where necessary, regular and systematic supervision aimed at preventing the aggravation of the prisoner's health condition (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and, more recently, Krivosejs v. Latvia, no. 45517/04, § 71, 17 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

    OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 35161/03
    The Court, while concerned about the domestic regulation in force at the material time (see paragraph 9, above) cannot rule in abstracto on its compatibility with the Convention (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 54, Series A no. 130) and in the circumstances, where the applicant has not provided any evidence in this respect, the Court is not prepared to make any inferences as to the existence of an arguable claim under Article 3.
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

    ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

    The Court notes that in some cases against Latvia it has been able to scrutinise monitoring activity undertaken by the MADEKKI as regards the quality of medical care in prison (see Daģis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 7843/02, 20 June 2009; Krivosejs v. Latvia, no. 45517/04, 17 January 2012; Van Deilena v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50950/06, 15 May 2012; and Leitendorfs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 35161/03, 3 July 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht