Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,20505) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
V.S. v. ESTONIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SIBANOV v. ESTONIA
Art. 3 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13
KHALVASH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15
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 secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016, and Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, § 55, 15 December 2015). - EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
Transnistrien
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15
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 secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016, and Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, § 55, 15 December 2015). - EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15
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 Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, 204, ECHR 2012; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-X; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 58530/08
NOGIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15
Ill-treatment must, however, attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is 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, among other authorities, Mursic, cited above, § 97, and Nogin v. Russia, no. 58530/08, § 81, 15 January 2015). - EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15
It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 113, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Mursic v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 96, ECHR 2016). - EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15
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 Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, 204, ECHR 2012; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-X; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
- EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17
HAVIK AND VAIK v. ESTONIA
At the same time, relying on the information provided by the Government and its own case-law (see Jatsõ?.õn v. Estonia, no. 27603/15, 30 October 2018, and the domestic case-law cited therein; Nikitin and Others v. Estonia, nos. 23226/16 and 6 others, 29 January 2019, and the domestic case-law cited therein; and V.S. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 8685/15, ECHR 10 October 2018), the Court finds that adequate remedies existed within the domestic legal system.