Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.T. v. ESTONIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TALI v. ESTONIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15
• EGMR, 16.10.2019 - 23183/15

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15

  On the other hand, the States have an obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and that this, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 102, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15

  The Court notes that in situations which concern the medical treatment of prisoners, the State authorities have, on the one hand, an obligation to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance to secure their health and well-being (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016, and Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, § 55, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13

  KHALVASH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15

  The Court notes that in situations which concern the medical treatment of prisoners, the State authorities have, on the one hand, an obligation to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance to secure their health and well-being (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016, and Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, § 55, 15 December 2015).

 
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  ALEKSEJEVA v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15

  On the other hand, the States have an obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and that this, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 102, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 45837/99

  KLEUVER v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15

  Against that background, the Court finds that the security measures were directly linked to the applicant's specific behaviour and, as such, did not exceed what could be reasonably considered necessary (see Kleuver v. Norway (dec.), no. 45837/99, ECHR, 30 April 2002, where - in the context of Article 8 of the Convention - cuffing and being escorted was considered to be warranted by the risk of escape; compare and contrast Filiz Uyan, cited above, § 32, and Duval, cited above, § 50, where a violation of Article 3 was found as the authorities had not demonstrated that the use of cuffing and the presence of prison officers had been adapted to the actual security needs and the risk posed by the prisoner).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 4694/03

  MUSTAFA AND ARMAGAN AKIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15

  The Court highlights that the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities (see Mustafa and Armagan Akin v. Turkey, no. 4694/03, § 20, 6 April 2010).