Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10   

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/2012,55428
EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55428)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.11.2012 - 24677/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55428)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. November 2012 - 24677/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55428)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55428) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (46)  

  • EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14

    PATRANIN v. RUSSIA

    The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014; and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).

    It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012).

  • EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 32863/13

    LITVINOV v. RUSSIA

    It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012 and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012).

    In the absence of an effective remedy to air complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates, the Court may find itself obliged to perform a first-hand evaluation of evidence before it to determine whether the guarantees of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention have been respected (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014; Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014, § 90).

  • EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

    KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA

    The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013).

    It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012 and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012).

  • EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13

    KHALVASH v. RUSSIA

    It has found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012).

    In the absence of an effective remedy to air complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates, the Court may find itself obliged to perform the first-hand evaluation of evidence before it to determine whether the guarantees of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention had been respected (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014; Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014, § 90).

  • EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 28333/13

    TSELOVALNIK v. RUSSIA

    The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013).

    It has found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012).

  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

    AMIROV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 62812/12

    BULAVA v. RUSSIA

    The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).

    The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; Litvinov, cited above, §§ 78-81; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 106, 4 December 2014; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012).

  • EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33690/12

    BALKOV v. RUSSIA

    The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November); and Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).

    The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies in Russia through which to complain about the poor quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; Litvinov v. Russia, no. 32863/13, §§ 78-81, 22 March 2016; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 106, 4 December 2014; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012).

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

    YUNZEL v. RUSSIA

    The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).

    In assessing the Government's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the available avenues of domestic protection regarding the allegedly inadequate medical treatment, the Court reiterates that it has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Ivko, cited above, §§ 85-88; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).

  • EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 51252/09

    BARSUKOV v. RUSSIA

    The provisions of the domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November); and Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).

    The Court has on many occasions found there to be a lack of effective domestic remedies in Russia through which to complain about the poor quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; Litvinov, cited above, §§ 78-81; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 106, 4 December 2014; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012).

  • EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 66823/12

    NIZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

    KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

    IVKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.02.2014 - 2689/12

    SEMIKHVOSTOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

    VASENIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 42147/05

    URAZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07

    MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

    ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07

    G. v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

    E.A. v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

    KLIMOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

    SERGEY DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 24051/11

    YANKOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 7001/06

    BABIY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 38777/04

    KOVALEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 22254/14

    ERMÉNYI v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 61744/11

    N.G. c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 35105/10

    KOLESNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.12.2017 - 70371/13

    KOROTEYEV AND SITARSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 56220/15

    AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49106/09

    VASILYADI v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 12646/15

    MAYLENSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 12987/15

    KONDRULIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 58530/08

    NOGIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 59705/12

    SERGEYEVA AND PROLETARSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 8741/15

    PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 44292/09

    GVINIASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

    PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 28046/05

    TKACHENKO c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 8720/12

    PARYGINA AND BULIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 52873/11

    PETROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 66231/14

    DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 52025/13

    MUMRYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

    GUSEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50149/11

    OLEG ZHURAVLEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 43302/08

    BERIA v. GEORGIA

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