Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JELADZE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)); that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March); and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at, to the extent possible, curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)); that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March); and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at, to the extent possible, curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)); that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March); and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at, to the extent possible, curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)); that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March); and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at, to the extent possible, curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see Hummatov, cited above, § 116, and Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

  GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  Rather, the compatibility of a detainee's state of health with his or her continued detention, even if he or she is seriously ill, is contingent on the State's ability to provide relevant treatment of the requisite quality in prison (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011, and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, §§ 71-73, 22 November 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  MAKHARADZE AND SIKHARULIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  Rather, the compatibility of a detainee's state of health with his or her continued detention, even if he or she is seriously ill, is contingent on the State's ability to provide relevant treatment of the requisite quality in prison (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011, and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, §§ 71-73, 22 November 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  The Court notes that the applicant's pre-trial detention within the meaning of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 ended upon his conviction at first instance on 30 June 2006 (see Davtian v. Georgia (dec.), no. 73241/01, 6 September 2005), and thereafter his detention was covered by Article 5 § 1 (a) (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7).

• LSG Baden-Württemberg, 18.12.2009 - L 12 AS 3700/09
  Diese wurde vom erkennenden Senat durch Beschluss vom 28.4.2008 (L 12 AS 1871/08) als unzulässig verworfen, weil die Berufung nur gegen Urteile oder Gerichtsbescheide zulässig sei und hier weder ein Urteil noch ein Gerichtsbescheid des SG vorliege.
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 55104/13

  CATALIN EUGEN MICU c. ROUMANIE

  À ce sujet, la Cour estime qu'il serait souhaitable que, avec leur consentement, les détenus puissent bénéficier dans un délai raisonnable après leur admission en prison de tests gratuits de dépistage concernant les hépatites et le VIH/SIDA (voir, en ce sens, Jeladze c. Géorgie, no 1871/08, § 44, 18 décembre 2012 où la Cour avait estimé que le retard de trois ans avant de soumettre le requérant à un dépistage de l'hépatite C constituait une négligence de l'État quant à ses obligations générales de prendre les mesures effectives afin de prévenir la transmission de l'hépatite C ou d'autres maladies transmissibles en prison).
• EGMR, 08.11.2018 - 13185/07

  ROSTOMASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons were summarised by the Court in the cases of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein); Goginashvili (cited above, §§ 69-70); Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia (no. 17012/09, §§ 39-40, 11 December 2012); and Jeladze v. Georgia (no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012).

 
• EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 37747/08

  KITIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons have been summarised by the Court in the case of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein; see also Goginashvili, cited above, §§ 69-70; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012; and Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, no. 17012/09, §§ 39-40, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10

  MAMULASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 18720/08

  BADUASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons were summarised by the Court in the cases of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein); Goginashvili v. Georgia (cited above, §§ 69-70); Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia (no. 17012/09, §§ 39-40, 11 December 2012); and Jeladze v. Georgia (no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 42047/06

  GHVALADZE v. GEORGIA

  A prison authority's failure to keep comprehensive records concerning a detained applicant's state of health or a respondent Government's failure to submit such records in their entirety would consequently allow the Court to draw inferences as to the merits of the applicant's allegations of a lack of adequate medical care (see, for instance, Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein; Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, § 61, 8 January 2013; Goginashvili, cited above, §§ 71-81, and Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 28-32, 18 December 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 17775/09

  TSIKLAURI v. GEORGIA

  In this connection, it reiterates that there already exists an abundance of well-established case-law, including against Georgia, concerning lack of adequate medical treatment in prison and lack of effective remedies in this regard (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61, 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 19882/07

  MAZANASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012; and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 42281/10

  CHITEISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons were summarised by the Court in the cases of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references); Goginashvili v. Georgia (no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011); Irakli Mindadze, cited above, §§ 39-40); and Jeladze v. Georgia (no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 56283/08

  TOPURIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  ANTONOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 14609/10

  MIRCEA DUMITRESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08

  KIKALISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2017 - 55506/08

  MESKHIDZE v. GEORGIA