Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IVKO v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" (see, mutatis mutandis, Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010 and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to assure the health and well-being of detainees as an obligation on the part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02

  THÉVENON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  The Court has previously considered similar requests (see, for example, Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 189-192, 3 October 2008, and Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII), having examined whether or not the persons wishing to pursue the proceedings were close relatives of the applicant (see Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287, and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III) and whether the rights concerned were transferable.
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  Moreover, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  Moreover, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 73359/10

  ERGEZEN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  In a more recent case Ergezen v. Turkey (no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014) the Court has applied a less restrictive approach, having held that the decisive point was not whether the rights in question were or were not transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the procedure, but whether the heirs could in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court.
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 55929/00

  MARIE-LOUISE LOYEN ET AUTRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 45133/98
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

  SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 4312/13

  TARRICONE c. ITALIE

  Enfin, la Cour rappelle que les juridictions nationales sont les mieux placées pour apprécier cette question, qui est difficile à trancher et requiert souvent une pluralité de connaissances médicales (Ivko c. Russie, no 30575/08, § 100, 15 décembre 2015).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33690/12

  BALKOV v. RUSSIA

  The relevant provisions of the domestic and international law on the general health care of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55-62, 15 December 2015).

  The applicable general principles are set out in the cases of Blokhin v. Russia [GC] (no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, ECHR 2016); Wenner v. Germany (no. 62303/13, §§ 54-58, 1 September 2016); and Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 91-95, 15 December 2015).

• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  However, in more recent cases relating to situations in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings before it, the Court has held that the decisive point was not whether the rights in question were or were not transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the proceedings, but whether the heirs could in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application (see Ergezen, cited above, § 29; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, § 68, 15 December 2015; and Provenzano v. Italy, no. 55080/13, § 96, 25 October 2018).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 50423/08

  GHAVALYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the latter cases, the Court has accepted that the next of kin, close family member or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, § 33, 8 October 2015; and Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, § 67-70, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 33842/10

  DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  In such cases, the decisive point was not whether the rights in question were or were not transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the proceedings, but whether the heirs could in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, § 68, 15 December 2015; and Provenzano v. Italy, no. 55080/13, § 96, 25 October 2018).
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  KAIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on the general health care of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55-62, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA

  The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on the general health care of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55-62, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 08.12.2022 - 10903/16

  VOROBYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The general principles regarding the quality of medical care in detention have been stated in several of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, ECHR 2016, and Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 91-95, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 24.11.2022 - 46645/19

  YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court observes that the general principles regarding the quality of medical care in detention have been stated in several of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, ECHR 2016, and Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 91-95, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 17274/18

  NOVGORODOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  As to the rest of the complaints, the Court reiterates that the general principles regarding the quality of medical care in detention have been stated in several of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, ECHR 2016, and Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 91-95, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 47061/15

  KHAKULOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 35605/17

  ALIYEV AND KARTASHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2018 - 63149/13

  GOFMAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 20888/14

  KARYY AND RAMISHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24421/11

  KARAKHANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 30795/12

  VASCENKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 50166/13

  SUCHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 44214/11

  SUSLOVA v. RUSSIA