Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56171
EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,56171)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.10.2011 - 47729/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,56171)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Oktober 2011 - 47729/08 (https://dejure.org/2011,56171)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56171) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 18888/02

    IÇYER c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
    That being said, the Court, having due regard to the fact that the most fundamental values - the applicant's health, well-being and life - are at stake in the present case, does not consider that it would be reasonable or compatible with the humanitarian considerations which are compelling for a proper examination of complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2004-XII; N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 43, 27 May 2008; and Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, § 94, 4 December 2008) to find that the fact that a better domestic remedy has been introduced subsequent to the introduction of the present application should render the applicant's complaint of lack of adequate medical care in prison inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in its entirety (compare, a contrario, with a number of cases raising various merely pecuniary interests, where domestic remedies were set up after the introduction, as a result of the Court's instructions to that end in its "pilot" judgments, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 140-149, ECHR 2006-V; Icyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 73-87, 12 January 2006; but also contrast with Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 65-66, 30 March 2004).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
    Indeed, the applicant's medical supervision has proved to be of a regular and systematic nature, rather than addressing his renal disorders on a symptomatic basis, and has made use of a truly comprehensive therapeutic strategy (compare with Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
    No less important is the fact that the prison authority has been able to maintain a comprehensive medical record of the applicant's state of health, monitoring the treatment he underwent from the beginning of his detention until the present day (compare with, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

    N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
    That being said, the Court, having due regard to the fact that the most fundamental values - the applicant's health, well-being and life - are at stake in the present case, does not consider that it would be reasonable or compatible with the humanitarian considerations which are compelling for a proper examination of complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2004-XII; N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 43, 27 May 2008; and Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, § 94, 4 December 2008) to find that the fact that a better domestic remedy has been introduced subsequent to the introduction of the present application should render the applicant's complaint of lack of adequate medical care in prison inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in its entirety (compare, a contrario, with a number of cases raising various merely pecuniary interests, where domestic remedies were set up after the introduction, as a result of the Court's instructions to that end in its "pilot" judgments, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 140-149, ECHR 2006-V; Icyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 73-87, 12 January 2006; but also contrast with Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 65-66, 30 March 2004).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

    Y v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
    That being said, the Court, having due regard to the fact that the most fundamental values - the applicant's health, well-being and life - are at stake in the present case, does not consider that it would be reasonable or compatible with the humanitarian considerations which are compelling for a proper examination of complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2004-XII; N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 43, 27 May 2008; and Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, § 94, 4 December 2008) to find that the fact that a better domestic remedy has been introduced subsequent to the introduction of the present application should render the applicant's complaint of lack of adequate medical care in prison inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in its entirety (compare, a contrario, with a number of cases raising various merely pecuniary interests, where domestic remedies were set up after the introduction, as a result of the Court's instructions to that end in its "pilot" judgments, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 140-149, ECHR 2006-V; Icyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 73-87, 12 January 2006; but also contrast with Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 65-66, 30 March 2004).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

    SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
    The circumstances of the present case clearly show that the prison authority was well aware of the applicant's medical condition and of his persistent complaints of lack of adequate treatment (see Melnik, cited above, § 70; Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 74, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); and Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos.
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
    Indeed, the applicant's medical supervision has proved to be of a regular and systematic nature, rather than addressing his renal disorders on a symptomatic basis, and has made use of a truly comprehensive therapeutic strategy (compare with Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
    Article 35 § 1 further requires that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
  • EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08

    KIKALISHVILI v. GEORGIA

    The relevant legal provisions concerning the protection of prisoners" rights in the custodial institutions of Georgia at the material time are set out in the following judgments: Goginashvili v. Georgia (no. 47729/08, §§ 32-35, 4 October 2011), and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia (no. 35254/07, §§ 40-43, 22 November 2011).

    The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons have been summarised by the Court in the case of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein; see also Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012; and Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, no. 17012/09, §§ 39-40, 11 December 2012).

  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

    ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

    Such a remedy can, in principle, be both preventive and compensatory in nature (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 49, 4 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

    SERGEY ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

    At the same time the State's obligation to cure a seriously ill detainee is one as to means, not as to result (due diligence test) (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 71, 4 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 61744/11

    N.G. c. RUSSIE

    La Cour examinera dans chaque cas si la détérioration de l'état de santé du détenu était imputable à des lacunes dans les soins médicaux dispensés (Goginashvili c. Géorgie, no 47729/08, § 71, 4 octobre 2011, et Catalin Eugen Micu c. Roumanie, no 55104/13, § 55, 5 janvier 2016).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

    JELADZE v. GEORGIA

    Rather, the compatibility of a detainee's state of health with his or her continued detention, even if he or she is seriously ill, is contingent on the State's ability to provide relevant treatment of the requisite quality in prison (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011, and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, §§ 71-73, 22 November 2011, with further references).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 8543/04

    CUPRAKOVS v. LATVIA

    In the particular context of complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention of lack of adequate care for prisoners suffering from serious illnesses the Court has held that a preventive remedy ought to have the potential to bring direct and timely relief (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 49, 4 October 2011, and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 52, 22 November 2011).
  • EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10

    MAMULASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65567/13

    YIZHACHENKO v. UKRAINE

    Rather, the compatibility of a detainee's state of health with his or her continued detention, even if he or she is seriously ill, is contingent on the State's ability to provide appropriate treatment of the requisite quality in prison (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 79, 4 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 11406/11

    NEAGU c. ROUMANIE

    Si l'on ne peut en déduire une obligation générale de remettre le détenu en liberté ou de le transférer dans un hôpital civil, même s'il souffre d'une maladie particulièrement difficile à soigner (Goginashvili c. Géorgie, no 47729/08, § 69, 4 octobre 2011), l'article 3 de la Convention impose en tout cas à l'État de protéger l'intégrité physique des personnes privées de liberté (Sakkopoulos c. Grèce, no 61828/00, § 38, 15 janvier 2004).
  • EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 17775/09

    TSIKLAURI v. GEORGIA

    In this connection, it reiterates that there already exists an abundance of well-established case-law, including against Georgia, concerning lack of adequate medical treatment in prison and lack of effective remedies in this regard (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61, 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 19882/07

    MAZANASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10

    P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 29964/10

    BRESLAVSKAYA v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 42281/10

    CHITEISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 14609/10

    MIRCEA DUMITRESCU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 27.05.2021 - 26072/11

    BOSTOGHANASHVILI v. GEORGIA

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