Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 18660/03
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 18660/03

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  The relevant extracts of the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture can be found in the judgment in the case of Melnik v. Ukraine, (no. 72286/01, §§ 47-49).

  As to the Government's reference to the fact that the applicant had not applied to the domestic courts in order to complain about the conditions of his detention, the Court observes that in several previous cases it has dismissed similar arguments, finding this remedy ineffective on the ground that the Government had not shown how recourse to such proceedings could have brought about an improvement in those conditions (see, for example, Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, § 153, 29 April 2003; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 70-71, 28 March 2006; Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 50, 12 October 2006; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 76, 25 October 2007).

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it has adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  The Court has previously found that though strip-searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime, they must, however, be conducted in an appropriate manner (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001).

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  The authorities were thereby made sufficiently aware of the applicant's situation and had an opportunity to examine the conditions of his detention and, if appropriate, to offer redress (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001, and Melnik, cited above, § 70).

  In accordance with this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure 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 Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  Nevertheless, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it has adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 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, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 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, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 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, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  Nevertheless, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 35887/05

  JANIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Indeed, the Government, by disclosing all the information necessary for the assessment of the quality of the disputed treatment, have discharged their part of the burden of proof and have properly assisted the Court in its task of determining the facts, whilst the applicant limited himself to wholly unsubstantiated assertions (compare with Goginashvili, § 72, and contrast with Malenko v. Ukraine, no. 18660/03, §§ 56-57, 19 February 2009).