Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Shchebetov v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  Finally, the Court observes that the aforementioned positive obligations also require an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the infringement of the right to life or to personal integrity can be established and those responsible made 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, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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 also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  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
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that absent or inadequate medical treatment, particularly when the disease has been contracted in detention, is most certainly a subject for the Court's concern (see Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, § 71, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  TARAKANOV v. RUSSIA

  The mere fact that the outcome of the proceedings was not favourable to the applicant does not render this remedy ineffective (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 89, ECHR 2000-II; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, § 91, 10 April 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 43174/10

  ANDREY GORBUNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court does not exclude that certain delays in medical care, although unfortunate, may be without any significant physical or psychological impact on the person concerned or, for instance, on the course of treatment (see Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, § 74, 10 April 2012, and, by contrast, Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 75, 5 April 2011).

 
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

  However, when an applicant was no longer in a situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 52025/13

  MUMRYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, when applicants complained of the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services when they no longer found themselves in the situation they complained about, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, when applicants complained of the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services when they no longer found themselves in the situation they complained about, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR - 19083/20 (anhängig)

  CEKIC v. SERBIA

  Has the State complied with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to investigate the circumstances in which the applicant had contracted tuberculosis (see, mutatis mutandis, Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, § 51, 10 April 2012)?.