Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,16252
EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16252)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.01.2012 - 48977/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16252)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Januar 2012 - 48977/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16252)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16252) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

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 ... (15)

  • EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 7997/08

    KUTTNER v. AUSTRIA

    [6] Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, 7 October 2001; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012; and Z.H. v. Hungary, no. 28973/11, 8 November 2012.
  • EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

    MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA

    They are similar to several cases in which the Court found a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention owing to the combination of a lack of any reasons for ordering pre-trial detention and a failure to fix its duration (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 136-37, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-98, 24 May 2007; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 111-14, 23 April 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 92-93, 10 January 2012; and Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, § 43, 27 June 2013, with further references).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

    KORYAK v. RUSSIA

    In circumstances where the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction had examined and dismissed the applicant's complaints, having found that the quality of the medical assistance afforded to him in detention had fully complied with domestic legal norms, the Court's conclusion that a tort action or a separate judicial complaint could not offer the applicant a reasonable prospect of success becomes even more salient (see Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 64-65, 10 January 2012; Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 55, 19 June 2008; and Valasinas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 44558/98, 4 March 2000).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 41252/12

    BAGDONAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

    However, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of that minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, for example, Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, § 68, 10 January 2012, and the case-law cited therein).

    As regards specific issues arising in connection with the applicant's health, the Court observes that in the cases concerning medical care in prison it was most often faced with situations arising in connection with prisoners affected with severe to very severe ailments, such as to make their normal daily functioning very difficult (see Kupczak v. Poland, no. 2627/09, 25 January 2011; Kaprykowski v. Poland, no. 23052/05, 3 February 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012; Kulikowski, cited above, § 71; and Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, § 72, 10 March 2009).

  • EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 44084/10

    GÜLAY ÇETIN c. TURQUIE

    La Cour rappelle que, selon sa jurisprudence, pour tomber sous le coup de l'article 3 de la Convention, un mauvais traitement doit atteindre un minimum de gravité, dont l'appréciation est relative par essence et dépend de l'ensemble des données de la cause, notamment de la durée du traitement et de ses effets physiques et mentaux, ainsi que, parfois, du sexe, de l'âge et de l'état de santé de la victime (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Price c. Royaume-Uni, no 33394/96, § 24, CEDH 2001-VII, Pretty c. Royaume-Uni, no 2346/02, § 52, CEDH 2002-III, Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, § 91, CEDH 2000-XI, Mouisel c. France, no 67263/01, § 37, CEDH 2002-IX, Naoumenko, précité, § 108, et Arutyunyan c. Russie, no 48977/09, § 68, 10 janvier 2012.
  • EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13

    TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA

    The Court notes that there is nothing in the material submitted to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court (see, for similar reasoning, Amirov, cited above; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012; and Buldashev v. Russia, no. 46793/06, 18 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

    KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    By way of comparison, the Court has previously given weight to the Russian authorities" reliance on the gravity of certain offences, such as kidnapping compounded with extortion (see Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014), or multiple aggravated gang kidnapping associated with extortion, robbery and possession and trafficking of firearms (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 7 and 98, 5 February 2015), or aggravated fraud by an organised group (see Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 6 and 40, 18 December 2012), or an organised aggravated murder (see Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, §§ 10 and 104, 27 November 2014), or an organised aggravated assault causing injuries of four and one death (see Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, § 103, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

    SERGEY DENISOV v. RUSSIA

    There is nothing in the materials submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court (see, for similar reasoning, Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012, and Buldashev v. Russia, no. 46793/06, 18 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

    ASALYA v. TURKEY

    Having reached the above conclusion, the Court does not need to examine additionally whether there has been a violation of Article 3 on account of the alleged disruption of his medical care during his detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners" Admission and Accommodation Centre, noting also that the applicant has not provided any detailed information about the particular treatment he needed, nor has he explained how, if at all, the seven-day interruption of his treatment adversely affected his condition (see Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, § 82, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 16831/07

    KULIKOWSKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

    As regards specific issues arising in connection with the applicant's diabetes, the Court observes that in the cases concerning medical care in prison it was most often faced with situations arising in connection with prisoners affected with severe to very severe ailments, such as to make their normal daily functioning very difficult (see Kupczak v. Poland, no. 2627/09, 25 January 2011; Kaprykowski v. Poland, no. 23052/05, 3 February 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

    NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 13394/18 (anhängig)

    MIKOCIUNAS v. LITHUANIA and 2 other applications

  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 48073/13

    KOVESHNIKOV v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

    PLETMENTSEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 10067/11

    PATSOS c. GRÈCE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht