Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  MOROZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  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, 03.02.2011 - 8532/06

  GEPPA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  The provisions of the domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013), and Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 43174/10

  ANDREY GORBUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  The Court reiterates that in previous cases against Russia concerning an alleged lack of adequate medical assistance for detainees, it has clearly distinguished between two situations.

 
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 37463/04

  AKHMETOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  The Court reiterates that in previous cases against Russia concerning an alleged lack of adequate medical assistance for detainees, it has clearly distinguished between two situations.
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  RESHETNYAK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  The provisions of the domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013), and Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  The provisions of the domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013), and Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  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, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  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, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  GADAMAURI AND KADYRBEKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  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, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  It considers that the aforementioned remedy was capable of providing redress in respect of his complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success and therefore should have been exhausted (see also Gusev v. Russia (dec.), no. 49038/12, § 24, 24 March 2015, and Mumryayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52025/13, § 14, 21 April 2015).
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 52025/13

  MUMRYAYEV v. RUSSIA