Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SLAWOMIR MUSIAL c. POLOGNE

  Art. 3, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 3 Etat défendeur tenu de prendre des mesures individuelles (46) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Respondent State to take individual measures (46) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (50)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  The Court has held on many occasions that the detention of a person who is ill may raise issues under Article 3 of the Convention (see Mouisel, ibid., § 37) and that the lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to that provision (see Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII; Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, § 112, 10 February 2004; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 51, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 01.03.2001 - 22493/93

  BERKTAY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  As to the pecuniary damage allegedly sustained (see paragraph 102 above), the Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (former Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20; see also Berktay v. Turkey, no. 22493/93, § 215, 1 March 2001; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 142, ECHR 2006-XII).

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  However, by its very nature, the violation found in the instant case does not leave any real choice as to the individual measures required to remedy it (see, mutatis mutandis, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 201-203, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 31443/96

  BRONIOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, a finding of a violation imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction under Article 41, but also to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V, and Dybeku, cited above, § 63).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  As to the pecuniary damage allegedly sustained (see paragraph 102 above), the Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (former Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20; see also Berktay v. Turkey, no. 22493/93, § 215, 1 March 2001; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 142, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  As to the pecuniary damage allegedly sustained (see paragraph 102 above), the Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (former Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20; see also Berktay v. Turkey, no. 22493/93, § 215, 1 March 2001; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 142, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  In certain circumstances recourse to the administrative authorities could be considered an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning the application or implementation of prison regulations (see, among other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 26, § 65).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  In particular, the assessment of whether the particular conditions of detention are incompatible with the standards of Article 3 has, in the case of mentally ill persons, to take into consideration their vulnerability and their inability, in some cases, to complain coherently or at all about how they are being affected by any particular treatment (see, for example, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, pp. 25-26, § 82, and Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 1966, § 66).
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 67263/01

  AFFAIRES MOUISEL ET HENAF CONTRE LA FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to transfer him to a civil hospital, even if he is suffering from an illness that is particularly difficult to treat (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

  MURSIC c. CROATIE

  15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 204 and 264, ECHR 2014 (extracts): "considerable importance", which also refers to the CPT's eleventh general report and the twenty-first general report; Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 96, 20 January 2009: "importance of this recommendation", Dybeku v. Albania, no. 41153/06, § 48, 18 December 2007: "importance of this recommendation"; Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, § 72, 11 July 2006: "grand poids".
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  In the recent judgment of Slawomir Musial v. Poland (no. 28300/06, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)), it held as follows: "The Court is also mindful of the fact that at the relevant time the governors of detention facilities, in which the applicant was held, acknowledged officially the existence of overcrowding and made decisions to reduce the statutory minimum standard of three square metres per person... In these circumstances, it cannot be said that any attempt by the applicant to seek with the penitentiary authorities an improvement of the conditions of his detention would give sufficient prospects of a successful outcome" (§ 75).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 45705/07

  D.G. v. POLAND

  The relevant provisions of domestic law and practice concerning medical care and conditions of detention in prisons and remand centres are set out in the Court's judgments handed down in the cases of Kaprykowski v. Poland (no. 23052/05, §§ 36-39, 3 February 2009); Slawomir Musial v. Poland (no. 28300/06, §§ 48-61, 20 January 2009); and Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04, §§ 75-85, 13 October 2009).

  It was held in those judgments that only a remedy capable of redressing the applicant's complaint in its entirety, and not merely its selected aspects, could realistically redress his situation (see Grzywaczewski, cited above, §§ 63-69, and Musialek, cited above, § 111-12; compare with Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 80, 20 January 2009).

  A summary of the general principles concerning the examination of medical care and conditions of detention under Article 3 may be found in the Court's recent judgments in Slawomir Musial v. Poland (no. 28300/06, §§ 85-88, ECHR 2009-...(extracts)) and Orchowski (cited above, §§ 119-229).

  For the above-mentioned reasons, having regard to the specific circumstances of the present case and its case-law in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Kupczak v. Poland, no. 2627/09, § 83, 25 January 2011, and Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, §§ 111-12, 20 January 2009) and deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR 8, 000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Their situation is therefore not comparable to those of persons in custody who complain of a lack of medical treatment (see, for example, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 109-16, ECHR 2001-III; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, §§ 47-58, ECHR 2003-V; and Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, §§ 85-98, 20 January 2009), seriously ill persons who would be unable to obtain treatment if removed to a country which lacks adequate medical facilities (see N. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 32-51, and the cases cited therein), or persons in a vulnerable situation who have, as a result of rank indifference on the part of health care professionals, been denied access to otherwise available diagnostic services to which they were entitled as a matter of law (see R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, §§ 148-62, 26 May 2011).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Noting the "importance" of these recommendations, see for example Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 66, ECHR 2016, and Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, §§ 62, 63, and 96, 20 January 2009.
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 10511/10

  MURRAY c. PAYS-BAS

  As regards the treatment of prisoners with mental health problems, the Court has consistently held that Article 3 of the Convention requires States to ensure that the health and well-being of prisoners are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 87, 20 January 2009; and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 128, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 31.05.2012 - 18364/06

  GRZYWACZEWSKI v. POLAND

  In their initial observations the Government formulated this objection in the same way as they did in the cases of Slawomir Musial v. Poland (no. 28300/06, §§ 67-69, 20 January 2009) and Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04, §§ 95-98, 22 October 2009).

  The Court has already held, in a case which was brought by a mentally ill detainee who, like the applicant in the instant case, complained of inadequate medical care combined with prison overcrowding and inadequate living conditions, that only a remedy able to address the applicant's complaint in its entirety and not merely its selected aspects, could realistically redress his situation (see Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 80, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).

  A summary of the general principles concerning the examination of medical care and conditions of detention under Article 3 may be found in the Court's recent judgments in Slawomir Musial v. Poland (no. 28300/06, §§ 85-88, ECHR 2009-...(extracts)) and Orchowski v. Poland (cited above, §§ 119-229).

• BVerfG, 07.11.2012 - 2 BvR 1567/11

  Strafvollzug (Menschenwürde; Haftraum; Ausstattung; Zellengröße); Zulässigkeit …

  In der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte sind Verstöße gegen Art. 3 EMRK nur in Fällen erheblich gravierenderer Beengtheit der räumlichen Verhältnisse festgestellt worden (vgl. BVerfGK 12, 410 , m.w.N., sowie aus jüngerer Zeit EGMR…, Urteil vom 7. April 2009, Brânduse./. Rumänien, Beschwerde Nr. 6586/03, Rn. 49; Urteil vom 20. Januar 2009, Slawomir Musial ./. Polen, Beschwerde Nr. 28300/06, Rn. 95;… Urteil vom 16. Juli 2009, Sulejmanovic ./. Italien, Beschwerde Nr. 22635/03, Rn. 43;… Urteil vom 12. März 2009, Aleksandr Makarov ./. Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 15217/07, Rn. 93;… Urteil vom 22. Mai 2012, 1dalov ./. Russland, Beschwerde Nr. 5826/03, Rn. 101, m.w.N.).
• EGMR, 10.01.2013 - 43418/09

  CLAES c. BELGIQUE

  Il est renvoyé à la partie « Documents internationaux pertinents'de l'arrêt Slawomir Musial c. Pologne (no 28300/06, § 62, 20 janvier 2009) qui cite les parties pertinentes, s'agissant des soins psychiatriques en prison, des recommandations R (98)7 relatives aux aspects éthiques et organisationnels des soins de santé en milieu pénitentiaire et R (2006)2 du Comité des Ministres aux Etats membres sur les règles pénitentiaires européennes.

  La Cour renvoie aux principes généraux relatifs à la responsabilité des Etats quant aux soins de santé des personnes en détention en général tels qu'ils se trouvent énoncés dans l'arrêt Cara-Damiani c. Italie (no 2447/05, §§ 65 à 68, 7 février 2012) et quant aux soins de santé des personnes détenues présentant des troubles mentaux en particulier tels qu'ils sont énoncés notamment dans les arrêts Rivière c. France (no 33834/03, §§ 59 à 63, 11 juillet 2006) et Slawomir Musial c. Pologne (no 28300/06, §§ 85 à 88, 94 et 96, 20 janvier 2009).

• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 18429/06

  Kein vegetarisches Essen für buddhistischen Häftling // Polen verurteilt

  In recent judgments the Court has drawn the authorities' attention to the importance of this recommendation, notwithstanding its non-binding nature (see Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 96, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11

  Belgien verurteilt: Vergewaltiger jahrelang nicht auf Deutsch therapiert
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 48369/09

  SZWED-WÓJTOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 38510/06

  STETTNER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 61254/09

  TURZYNSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 34739/13

  WOLKOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 32798/02

  MUSIALEK AND BACZYNSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 4312/13

  TARRICONE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.01.2024 - 30138/21

  MIRANDA MAGRO v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

  STRAZIMIRI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2022 - 11791/20

  SY c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 58502/11

  ABDYUSHEVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 47687/13

  BAMOUHAMMAD c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 32060/05

  PARASCINETI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

  GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 13015/20

  ZEMZAMI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 66850/12

  OJCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  MAKHARADZE AND SIKHARULIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30221/06

  SZEL v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27244/09

  G. v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 32010/07

  COCAIGN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 38704/11

  GÖMI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 6200/07

  KOWRYGO v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  ILIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 34567/20

  NEVES INÁCIO HÉLIOTROPE c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 65196/16

  NORMANTOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 60867/08

  SHANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 22283/10

  LANKESTER c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 38719/09

  WENERSKI v. POLAND (No. 2)
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 16391/05

  SHAHANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 21116/09

  NOCHA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 18382/05

  RADKOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 28142/17

  LAÇI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 15669/13

  KOSENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 24575/10

  TICU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 17012/09

  IRAKLI MINDADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 2627/09

  KUPCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37729/02

  KAMYSZEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 41252/12

  BAGDONAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2021 - 26072/11

  BOSTOGHANASHVILI v. GEORGIA