Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISMATULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6 MRK
  Inadmissible (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  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, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  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; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  Accordingly, the Court does not consider that the prison authorities would have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61): in deciding on a complaint concerning an inmate's medical care for which they are responsible, they would in reality be judges in their own cause (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 55, 4 October 2011).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198, and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 22, Series A no. 112).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  It has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically: in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 35, Series A no. 40).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  Accordingly, it has recognised that the rule of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).

• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

  The applicant's complaints were limited to a mere allegation that he had been infected with hepatitis C. The applicant did not mention, even in summary fashion, that he suspected his infection had been caused by action or negligence on the part of medical staff in prison (see § 54 et seq. above, contrast with Mitkus, § 33, cited above, Ismatullayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 29687/09, § 8, 6 March 2012; see a contrario Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, § 35, 18 December 2012) or that the State was otherwise responsible for the infection or for failure to prevent it.