Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (20)
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99
MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
In Menson v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003 V) the victim was found lying in the street late at night in a severe state of shock with extensive third degree burns.Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to their case (see, for example, Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003 V).
- EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99
McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
Accordingly, while Article 3 cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it imposes an obligation on the State to assure the requisite protection of the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, for example, providing them with appropriate medical assistance (Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 112, 11 July 2006).The Court considers that the severity of the applicant's suffering was such as to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (for example, McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, ECHR 2003-Vl; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006).
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
Accordingly, while Article 3 cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it imposes an obligation on the State to assure the requisite protection of the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, for example, providing them with appropriate medical assistance (Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 112, 11 July 2006).The Court considers that the severity of the applicant's suffering was such as to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (for example, McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, ECHR 2003-Vl; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006).
- EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
It is an established principle that Article 2 can apply to unintentional deprivations of life flowing from a failure to adequately protect a vulnerable detainee (for example, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 89 and 92, ECHR 2001-III and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 69, 5 July 2005).Accordingly, while Article 3 cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it imposes an obligation on the State to assure the requisite protection of the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, for example, providing them with appropriate medical assistance (Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 112, 11 July 2006).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
ILHAN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
It is recalled, at the outset, that the application of Article 2 to a non-fatal case is exceptional (Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 76, ECHR 2000 VII).On the other hand, in Ä°lhan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 22277/93, §§ 76-78, ECHR 2000 VII), the Court considered that the "degree and type" of force used and the "unequivocal intention or aim" behind the use of force were relevant in assessing whether the actions inflicting injury short of death were incompatible with the object and purpose of Article 2. Abdüllatif Ä°lhan had suffered brain damage from at least one blow to the head with a rifle butt inflicted by the police who had also kicked and beaten him.
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99
POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
However, the availability of preventative and/or compensatory civil actions could constitute adequate remedies in respect of a complaint of a breach of this obligation to protect from ill-treatment, so that a failure to initiate such actions could amount to a failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies (Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-77, ECHR 1999-V; Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; Banks v. the United Kingdom, cited above; Petrea v. Romania, no. 4792/03, § 36, 29 April 2008; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010; Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010; Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 49, 4 October 2011; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97
Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
However, if the infringement of the right to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an effective judicial system does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90 and 94-95, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99
MAKARATZIS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
The Court would underline that the applicability of Article 2 is a separate matter from the merits of the question as to whether or not a positive obligation to protect arose on the particular facts of a case (Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; and Erikan Bulut v. Turkey (cited above), although the "real and imminent" nature of a risk to life could inform the Court's examination of both questions. - EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99
TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
It is an established principle that Article 2 can apply to unintentional deprivations of life flowing from a failure to adequately protect a vulnerable detainee (for example, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 89 and 92, ECHR 2001-III and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 69, 5 July 2005). - EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 51480/99
ERIKAN BULUT v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
The Court has also examined complaints about a failure to protect a detainee under Article 2 even in non-fatal cases (for example, Erikan Bulut v. Turkey (no. 51480/99, 2 March 2006). - EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03
PETREA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 39953/07
BAILEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95
Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96
CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 46706/08
IGNAOUA AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to their case (see, for example, Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V; and P. v. the United Kingdom (dec), no. 1529/10, 12 November 2013).