Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKHARADZE AND SIKHARULIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  Lastly, reiterating that in an exceptional situation a conditional release of a seriously ill prisoner may be required under the Convention (see, amongst many others, Aleksanyan, cited above; and Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI), the Court cannot avoid the question of addressing the domestic courts" position in the proceedings concerning the suspension of the applicant's sentence.
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  This obligation does not mean that recourse to the criminal law is always required; under certain circumstances, an investigation conducted in the course of disciplinary proceedings would suffice (see Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 90, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 61827/00

  GLASS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  Where a hospital is a public institution, the acts and omissions of its medical staff are capable of engaging the responsibility of the respondent State under the Convention (see Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 71, ECHR 2004-II).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  They also require an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession can be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X (extracts); and Paladi, cited above, §§ 90 and 91).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  A sharp deterioration in a person's state of health in detention facilities inevitably raises serious doubts as to the adequacy of medical treatment there (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 57, 2 December 2004; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 84, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  In addition, the positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention require States to make regulations compelling hospitals, whether civil or prison, to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of patients" lives (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 74, 85 and 87, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  Apart from the fact that the inadequate monitoring and treatment of prisoners suffering from serious contagious diseases, such as tuberculosis, represented, at the material time, a structural problem in the Georgian penitentiary system (see Poghosyan v. Georgia, no. 9870/07, § 69, 24 February 2009; and Ghavtadze v. Georgia, no. 23204/07, § 104, 3 March 2009), the particular circumstances of the present case clearly show that the prison administration was well aware of the first applicant's medical condition and of his persistent complaints about the lack of adequate treatment (see Melnik, cited above, § 70; Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 74, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); and Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 9870/07

  POGHOSSIAN c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  Apart from the fact that the inadequate monitoring and treatment of prisoners suffering from serious contagious diseases, such as tuberculosis, represented, at the material time, a structural problem in the Georgian penitentiary system (see Poghosyan v. Georgia, no. 9870/07, § 69, 24 February 2009; and Ghavtadze v. Georgia, no. 23204/07, § 104, 3 March 2009), the particular circumstances of the present case clearly show that the prison administration was well aware of the first applicant's medical condition and of his persistent complaints about the lack of adequate treatment (see Melnik, cited above, § 70; Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, § 74, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); and Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  They also require an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession can be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I).

• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 39415/15

  ARENDARCZUK v. POLAND

  Thus, the national authorities have an obligation to protect the health and well-being of persons who have been deprived of their liberty by providing them with the medical care necessary to safeguard their lives (see Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 71, 22 November 2011).

  That is the case, for instance, where a person dies in custody in suspicious circumstances (even where the apparent cause of death is a medical condition), which, as a rule, raises the question of whether the State has complied with its positive obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 30, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Kats and Others, cited above, § 115; Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 71, 3 February 2011; and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 87, 22 November 2011).

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 24109/07

  ASIYE GENÇ c. TURQUIE

  Notamment, lorsqu'il y a des raisons plausibles de croire que le décès est suspect, l'article 2 exige que les autorités déclenchent promptement et de leur propre chef une enquête officielle, indépendante, impartiale et efficace afin de vérifier les circonstances qui en sont à l'origine (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tararieva c. Russie, no 4353/03, §§ 74, 75 et 103, CEDH 2006-XV (extraits), Kats et autres c. Ukraine, no 29971/04, §§ 116 et 120, 18 décembre 2008, Gagiu c. Roumanie, no 63258/00, § 68, 24 février 2009, Makharadze et Sikharulidze c. Géorgie, no 35254/07, § 87, 22 novembre 2011, et Gülay Çetin c. Turquie, no 44084/10, § 87, 5 mars 2013).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 44084/10

  GÜLAY ÇETIN c. TURQUIE

  On peut citer à titre d'exemple les principes relatifs à l'obligation faite aux Etats de protéger la vie et la santé des personnes privées de leur liberté (voir, entre autres, Powell c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 45305/99, CEDH 2000-V, Makharadze et Sikharulidze c. Géorgie, no 35254/07, §§ 71 et 73, 22 novembre 2011, Naoumenko c. Ukraine, no 42023/98, § 112, 10 février 2004, Dzieciak c. Pologne, no 77766/01, § 91, 9 décembre 2008, Huylu c. Turquie, no 52955/99, §§ 57-58, 16 novembre 2006, Taïs c. France, no 39922/03, §§ 96 et 98, 1er juin 2006, Anguelova c. Bulgarie, no 38361/97, § 130, CEDH 2002-IV, ou encore Tararieva c. Russie, no 4353/03, §§ 74, 85 et 87, CEDH 2006-XV (extraits)), obligation qui impose d'instaurer un système judiciaire efficace et indépendant qui permette d'établir la cause du décès des individus se trouvant sous la responsabilité de professionnels pénitentiaires de la santé - c'est-à-dire de soumettre les faits de la cause à un contrôle public - et, le cas échéant, d'obliger ces professionnels à répondre de leurs actes (voir, par exemple, Powell, précitée, et, mutatis mutandis, Dodov c. Bulgarie, no 59548/00, § 80, 17 janvier 2008, Vo c. France [GC], no 53924/00, § 89, CEDH 2004-VIII, et Calvelli et Ciglio, précité, § 49, avec les références qui y figurent).

 
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  In contrast to the cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings or non-enforcement of judgments, where the Court has accepted in principle that a compensatory remedy alone might suffice (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 187, ECHR 2006-V; and Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 99, ECHR 2009 (extracts)), the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3 (see also Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, §§ 54-55, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 9342/16

  KAYA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  C'est dans ce contexte que la Cour a examiné des cas sous l'angle de l'article 2 ou 3 de la Convention concernant des suicides en prison (Keenan, précité, §§ 89-102 et 109-116, et Ketreb c. France, no 38447/09, §§ 70-99, 19 juillet 2012), les conditions de détention (voir, par exemple, Peers c. Grèce, no 28524/95, §§ 68-75, CEDH 2001-III, Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 139-158, 10 janvier 2012, et Varga et autres c. Hongrie, nos 14097/12 et 5 autres, §§ 66-78, 10 mars 2015), ou encore quant à des problèmes de santé des détenus (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Makharadze et Sikharulidze c. Géorgie, no 35254/07, §§ 71-94, 22 novembre 2011).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 69950/14

  ZWIERZ v. POLAND

  The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to find that, notwithstanding what appears to be the failure of the criminal investigation to comply with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition, the civil remedy has been sufficient and effective, given the particular circumstances of the present case, in addressing all aspects of the applicant's complaint under Article 2 of the Convention and in rectifying matters through the domestic legal system (compare and contrast with Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, §§ 87-89, 22 November 2011, where deficiencies in the provision of healthcare were not elucidated either through civil proceedings or through any other independent, impartial and comprehensive inquiry; see also, mutatis mutandis, Kekelashvili, cited above, § 54).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 15509/12

  KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE

  That is the case, for instance, where a person dies in custody in suspicious circumstances (even where the apparent cause of death is a medical condition), which, as a rule, raises the question of whether the State has complied with its positive obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 30 and 34, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Kats and Others, cited above, § 115; Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 71, 3 February 2011; and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 87, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 26562/07

  TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The successors can maintain the applications on behalf of their deceased relatives (see Balenko v. Russia, no. 35350/05, § 39, 11 October 2011, and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 52, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  JELADZE v. GEORGIA

  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, 18.12.2012 - 8543/04

  CUPRAKOVS v. LATVIA

  In the particular context of complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention of lack of adequate care for prisoners suffering from serious illnesses the Court has held that a preventive remedy ought to have the potential to bring direct and timely relief (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 49, 4 October 2011, and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 52, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 623/13

  VOSKANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 60625/12

  HILMIOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 35861/11

  KEKELASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.05.2015 - 75468/10

  OLSOY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 25776/05

  DIMITROVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 17081/06

  METIN GÜLTEKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 47590/06

  RUDEVITS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 60909/08

  CHKOTUA AND ARKANIA v. GEORGIA