Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUMIKYAN v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DUMIKYAN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 2961/09

  Assessing the facts of the case as a whole, having regard in particular to the cumulative effects of the inadequate medical care and the inappropriate conditions in which the applicant was held throughout his detention, which clearly had a detrimental effect on his health and well-being (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 98, ECHR 2002 VI), the Court considers that the nature, duration and severity of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected are sufficient to be qualified as inhuman and degrading (see Musialek and Baczynski v. Poland, no. 32798/02, § 137, 26 July 2011; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 45, 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 42, 20 January 2005; and Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 77, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 32798/02

  MUSIALEK AND BACZYNSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 2961/09

  Assessing the facts of the case as a whole, having regard in particular to the cumulative effects of the inadequate medical care and the inappropriate conditions in which the applicant was held throughout his detention, which clearly had a detrimental effect on his health and well-being (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 98, ECHR 2002 VI), the Court considers that the nature, duration and severity of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected are sufficient to be qualified as inhuman and degrading (see Musialek and Baczynski v. Poland, no. 32798/02, § 137, 26 July 2011; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 45, 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 42, 20 January 2005; and Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 77, ECHR 2000-XII).

• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 78851/16

  MICHALSKI v. POLAND

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 in the context of delayed non-emergency medical procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, 12 March 2013; Todorov v. Ukraine, no. 16717/05, 12 January 2012; Dumikyan v. Russia, no. 2961/09, 13 December 2016; and Bujak v. Poland, no. 686/12, 21 March 2017) and of Article 6 in the context of the restriction of the right of access to a court on account of excessive court fees (Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005, Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, 26 July 2005; Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, 26 July 2005 and Irena Stall v. Poland (strike out) no. 5274/06, 10 March 2009).