Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOROBET v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 30951/10

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 30951/10

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, inter alia, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX; and Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, § 108, 10 February 2004).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 30951/10

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, inter alia, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX; and Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, § 108, 10 February 2004).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 30951/10

  The Court reiterates that an individual cannot be considered to be "of unsound mind" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 and deprived of his liberty unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: he must be reliably shown to be of unsound mind; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75 and David v. Moldova, no. 41578/05, § 39, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 30951/10

  The Court observes that in its judgment in the case of Guzzardi v. Italy (6 November 1980, § 98, Series A no. 39), it explained the reason for the existence of the exception to the right to liberty set out in sub-paragraph (e) as being to make provision for the detention of vulnerable groups for their own protection and/or for the protection of others.
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 30951/10

  Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 30951/10

  With respect to medical interventions to which a detained person is subjected against his or her will the Court has held that a measure which is of therapeutic necessity from the point of view of established principles of medicine cannot in principle be regarded as inhuman and degrading (see, in particular, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244, and Naumenko, cited above, § 112).

• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 38963/18

  V.I. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court must nevertheless satisfy itself that a medical necessity has been convincingly shown to exist and that procedural guarantees for the decision exist and are complied with (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 69, ECHR 2006-IX, Akopyan v. Ukraine, no. 12317/06, § 102, 5 June 2014; Gorobet v. Moldova, no. 30951/10, §§ 47-53, 11 October 2011; and V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, §§ 100-20, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 75095/11

  Rechtfertigung einer Zwangsmedikation mit Antipsychotika aufgrund eines …

  Der Gerichtshof hat in einer Reihe von Fällen seine Praxis in Bezug auf Beschwerden über zwangsweise Verabreichung von Medikamenten etabliert (…siehe insbesondere Herczegfalvy./. Österreich, 24. September 1992, Rdnr. 82, Serie A Bd. 244; Naumenko./. Ukraine, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 42023/98, Rdnr. 112, 10. Februar 2004 und Gorobet./. Moldawien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30951/10, Rdnr. 51, 11. Oktober 2011).
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 12317/06

  AKOPYAN v. UKRAINE

  Medical intervention to which a person is subjected against his or her will, including for the purposes of psychiatric assistance, may be regarded as treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Gorobet v. Moldova, no. 30951/10, §§ 47-53, 11 October 2011, and V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, §§ 100-120, ECHR 2011 (extracts), with further references therein).

 
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 10060/07

  BATALINY v. RUSSIA

  The Court must nevertheless satisfy itself that a medical necessity has been convincingly shown to exist and that procedural guarantees for the decision exist and are complied with (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 94, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Gorobet v. Moldova, no. 30951/10, § 51, 11 October 2011; and V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 103, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5471/14

  AMARIKYAN v. ARMENIA

  Moreover, while it appears that her mobile phone had been taken by the hospital staff several days after she had been taken into detention, the applicant did not complain that she had been refused other means of communication, such as mail or payphone - which were in fact ensured under domestic law -, or even indicate what kind of restrictions had been imposed on her contact with the outside world (contrast Gorobet v. Moldova, no. 30951/10, §§ 8 and 52, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 12653/15

  DOGOTAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  17.