Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,59117
EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05 (https://dejure.org/2005,59117)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.10.2005 - 3456/05 (https://dejure.org/2005,59117)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Oktober 2005 - 3456/05 (https://dejure.org/2005,59117)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,59117) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 (insufficient reasons for detention) No violation of Art. 5-3 (statutory competence of judges) Violation of Art. 5-4 (length of review) No violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

 
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 ... (121)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

    Transnistrien

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    He invoked the fact that his lawyer had extensive experience in the field of human rights, having won extremely complex cases before this Court such as Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-...).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
     
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    In this context, "[a]rguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract"" (Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    The Court recalls that under the second limb of Article 5 § 3, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his continuing detention (YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

    Schiesser ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    Before an "officer" can be said to exercise "judicial power" within the meaning of this provision, he or she must satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the person detained against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, pp. 13-14, § 31).
  • EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

    HURTADO c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    Although Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    Moreover, the domestic courts "must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release" (Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 35).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 62303/13

    Bayerns Justiz verletzte Menschenrechte

    Die behördliche Verweigerung der von einem unter schwerwiegenden Gesundheitsproblemen leidenden Gefangenen beantragten unabhängigen fachspezifischen medizinischen Unterstützung ist ein Aspekt, mit dem sich der Gerichtshof bei der Beurteilung der staatlichen Einhaltung von Artikel 3 bereits auseinandergesetzt hat (vgl. bspw. Sarban./. Moldau, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 3456/05, Rdnr. 90, 4. Oktober 2005).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

    Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

    Der Gerichtshof stellt erneut fest, dass Artikel 5 Abs. 4 dadurch, dass er inhaftierten Personen das Recht auf Anfechtung der Rechtmäßigkeit ihrer Freiheitsentziehung garantiert, nach Einleitung des entsprechenden Verfahrens auch ein Recht auf zügige gerichtliche Entscheidung über die Rechtmäßigkeit der Haft sowie auf Aufhebung der Haft bei Feststellung ihrer Unrechtmäßigkeit gewährt (…siehe Rechtssachen Baranowski a. a. O., Randnr. 68; Jablonski ./. Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33492/96, Randnr. 91, 21. Dezember 2000; und Sarban ./. Moldau, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 3456/05, Randnr. 118, 4. Oktober 2005).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

    YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA

    The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that the diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik, cited above, §§ 104-106; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, cited above, § 211).

    Its ordinary task in such cases is therefore to assess the quality of medical services rendered to applicants and, if they have been deprived of adequate medical assistance, to ascertain whether this amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 78, 4 October 2005).

    In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).

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