Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOLKOWICZ v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  WOLKOWICZ v. POLAND

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 34739/13

  The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities and general conditions of detention, and the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kaprykowski v. Poland, no. 23052/05, §§ 36-39, 3 February 2009; Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, §§ 48-61, 20 January 2009; and Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, §§ 74-85, 13 October 2009.

  The Court recalls that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to transfer him to a civil hospital, even if he is suffering from an illness that is particularly difficult to treat (see, among others, Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 86, 20 January 2009).

• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 15351/03

  ZARZYCKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 34739/13

  Where the authorities decide to place and maintain in detention a person with disabilities, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to his special needs resulting from his disability (see, Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004, and Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013).

  It cannot be said therefore that the authorities failed in their obligations to the applicant and left him to rely entirely on the availability and goodwill of his fellow prisoners (see, mutatis mutandis, Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 116, 12 March 2013).

• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 34739/13

  There are three particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of an applicant's health with his stay in detention: (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant (see Mouisel v. France, cited above, §§ 40-42; Sakkopoulos v. Greece, no. 61828/00, § 39, 15 January 2004; and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 94, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 61828/00

  SAKKOPOULOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 34739/13

  There are three particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of an applicant's health with his stay in detention: (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant (see Mouisel v. France, cited above, §§ 40-42; Sakkopoulos v. Greece, no. 61828/00, § 39, 15 January 2004; and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 94, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 34739/13

  The authorities must also ensure that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy that seeks, to the extent possible, to cure the detainee's diseases or to avoid aggravating them, rather than to address them on a symptomatic basis (see, among many other authorities, Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, § 63, 23 July 2013).

• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 65196/16

  NORMANTOWICZ v. POLAND

  On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court does not find that the medical care provided to the applicant was deficient or below the standard level of health care available to the general population, or that the courts examining the applicant's request for leave made a manifest error of judgment (see Wolkowicz v. Poland (dec.), no. 34739/13, § 110, 7 March 2017).