Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GORELOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Gorelov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GORELOV (II) v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  The Convention requires the State to protect the health and physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by adopting appropriate measures for the protection of their lives and providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see, inter alia, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; and McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  The Convention requires the State to protect the health and physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by adopting appropriate measures for the protection of their lives and providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see, inter alia, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; and McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  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 of deprivation of liberty 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 v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even where 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, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  Finally, the Court observes that the aforementioned positive obligations also require an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that any infringement of the right to life or personal integrity can be identified and those responsible held accountable (see, for instance, Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V, and Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and may also fall within the prohibition contained in Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  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 of deprivation of liberty 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 v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 18785/13

  KOUTALIDIS c. GRÈCE

  En outre, la Cour rappelle que, en principe, le manque de soins médicaux appropriés peut constituer un traitement contraire à l'article 3 (Ä°lhan c. Turquie [GC], no 22277/93, § 87, CEDH 2000-VII, Gennadiy Naoumenko c. Ukraine, no 42023/98, § 112, 10 février 2004, Gurenko c. Russie, no 41828/10, 5 février 2013, Bubnov c. Russie, no 76317/11, 5 février 2013, Budanov c. Russie, no 66583/11, 9 janvier 2014, et Gorelov c. Russie, no 49072/11, 9 janvier 2014).