Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Z.H. v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information in language understood) Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Z.H. v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Z.H. v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 28973/11

  In considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see among many other authorities Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 26, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 28973/11

  This redistribution of the burden of proof is analogous to the manner in which the Court examines situations where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, so that it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see among many other authorities Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 46857/06

  ENGEL v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 28973/11

  In considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see among many other authorities Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 26, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 28973/11

  In considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see among many other authorities Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 26, 20 May 2010).

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Il déduit de la partie pertinente en l'espèce de l'abondante jurisprudence de la Cour concernant l'article 2 que le Gouvernement était tenu de fournir une explication au sujet des soins médicaux dispensés à M. Câmpeanu et de la cause de la mort de celui-ci (le CRJ cite, parmi d'autres, Kats et autres c. Ukraine, no 29971/04, § 104, 18 décembre 2008, Dodov c. Bulgarie, no 59548/00, § 81, 17 janvier 2008, Alexanian c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 147, 22 décembre 2008, Khoudobine c. Russie, no 59696/00, § 84, CEDH 2006-XII, et Z.H. c. Hongrie, no 28973/11, §§ 31-32, 8 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 22198/20

  L.M. v. ITALY

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to medical care in prison (see, for example, Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 144-48, 31 January 2019, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, 23 March 2016), as well as concerning the conditions of detention of people with disabilities, including people suffering from deaf-mutism (see, in particular, Z.H. v. Hungary, no. 28973/11, §§ 28-33, 8 November 2012).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16

  SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  As regards cases concerning detainees with disabilities, the Court has considered that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see, for example, Z.H. v. Hungary, no. 28973/11, § 29, 8 November 2012, and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 59, 21 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 25820/07

  STEFAN STANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Sur ce point, la Cour est d'avis que, dans la mesure où le requérant appartient à un groupe de personnes vulnérables et où il aurait dû, dès lors, se voir offrir de la part des autorités des mesures raisonnables afin de prévenir des situations qui pourraient résulter en un traitement inhumain et dégradant, il appartenait au Gouvernement de prouver que les mesures requises ont été prises même avant 2008 (Z.H. c. Hongrie, no 28973/11, § 31, 8 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  ASALYA v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates in this connection that where authorities decide to place and keep a person with a disability in detention they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 30, ECHR 2001-VII; Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004; Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 59, 21 December 2010; and Z.H. v. Hungary, no. 28973/11, § 29, 8 November 2012; and the international law material in paragraphs 35-37 above).
• EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 17222/20

  FAIA v. ITALY

  Furthermore, the Court has considered that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to the special needs resulting from his or her disability (see Helhal v. France, no. 10401/12, § 50, 19 February 2015, and Z.H. v. Hungary, no. 28973/11, § 29, 8 November 2012).
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 46083/14

  TUGRUL c. TURQUIE

  Quant au délai écoulé pour prendre une décision à propos du sursis à l'exécution de la peine du requérant, c'est-à-dire la période entre le rapport du 20 septembre 2013 et la date de la décision du procureur rejetant la demande y afférente, à savoir le 25 novembre 2013, 1a Cour considère que, compte tenu de la nature du grief, la prise en charge adéquate du requérant et les avis partagés des médecins, ce délai n'est pas suffisamment significatif pour en tirer des conclusions sur le non-respect des obligations découlant de l'article 3 de la Convention (comparer avec Z.H. c. Hongrie, no 28973/11, §§ 30-33, 8 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 8741/15

  PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  At the outset the Court reiterates that where authorities decide to place and keep a person with a disability in detention they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see Z.H. v. Hungary, no. 28973/11, § 29, 8 November 2012; Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 59, 21 December 2010; Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004; and Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 30, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR - 13383/22 (anhängig)

  ÇAY c. TÜRKIYE

  En particulier, les autorités nationales compétentes ont-elles rempli avec diligence leurs obligations de protéger la santé du requérant privé de liberté dans la mesure où il était atteint de sclérose en plaques (voir, entre autres, Hummatov c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 9852/03 et 13413/04, §§ 104 et suiv., 29 novembre 2007, Z.H. c. Hongrie, no 28973/11, §§ 28 et suiv., 8 novembre 2012, et Amirov c. Russie, no 51857/13, §§ 82 et suiv., 27 novembre 2014) ?.