Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Melnitis v. Latvia

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  Furthermore, 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  The applicant additionally relied on the parties" submissions in the Peers case to argue that the possibility for a detainee to obtain toiletries and toilet paper from another source did not absolve the respondent State from its responsibility under the Convention (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 64, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  Furthermore, 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the applicant's specific allegations (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 80, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  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, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  It is nevertheless the case that, in the absence of a specifically introduced remedy, the development and availability of a remedy said to exist, its scope and application must be clearly set out and confirmed or complemented by the domestic courts" case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Soc v. Croatia, no. 47863/99, §§ 93-94, 9 May 2003; Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, § 38, ECHR 2006-XIV; and, most recently, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 120, 10 September 2010).
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  MAKHARADZE AND SIKHARULIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  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, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the applicant's specific allegations (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 80, 13 September 2005).

• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY

  The Court also reiterates that in the absence of a specifically introduced remedy, the development and availability of a remedy said to exist, and its scope and application, must be justified by the Government with reference to the domestic courts" case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 50, 28 February 2012; McFarlane, cited above, §§ 115-27; Costa and Pavan v. Italy, no. 54270/10, § 37, 28 August 2012; and Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.
• OLG Celle, 16.06.2017 - 2 AR (Ausl) 31/17

  Zulässigkeit der Auslieferung eines Verfolgten nach Lettland zum Zwecke der …

  So ergeben sich aus den Urteilen des EGMR vom 28. Februar 2012 (CASE OF MELNĪTIS v. LATVIA, Application no. 30779/05) und vom 18. Dezember 2012 (CASE OF CUPRAKOVS v. LATVIA, Application no. 8543/04) sowie aus den Berichten des CPT (Europäisches Komitee zur Verhütung von Folter und unmenschlicher oder erniedrigender Behandlung oder Strafe) betreffend die Jahre 2011 und 2013 insbesondere Hinweise auf menschenunwürdige hygienische und sanitäre Bedingungen in den lettischen Vollzugsanstalten.
• OLG Bremen, 03.08.2016 - 1 AuslA 14/15

  Unzulässigkeit der Auslieferung nach Lettland zum Zwecke der Strafvollstreckung …

  Konkrete Anhaltspunkte hierfür ergeben sich etwa aus den Gründen der Urteile des EGMR vom 28.02.2012 im Fall Melnitis gegen Lettland (Application nos. 30779/05) und vom 18.12.2012 im Fall Cuprakovs gegen Lettland (Application nos. 8543/04).

 
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 15351/03

  ZARZYCKI v. POLAND

  In view of these considerations, the Court is satisfied that by allowing the applicant to use a shower room six times per week, the authorities adequately responded to his special needs (contrary to, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, §§ 28-30, ECHR 2001-VII and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 75, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

  The existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3. Indeed, the special importance attached by the Convention to this provision requires, in the Court's view, the States parties to establish, over and above a compensatory remedy, an effective mechanism to put an end to such treatment rapidly (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 98, 10 January 2012, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 48, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13

  TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method in which the measure is enforced do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  BULATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 requires the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 9929/12

  BUCHS v. SWITZERLAND

  In order to ascertain whether the Government's request under Article 37 § 1 (b) can be accepted in the present case, the Court must answer two questions in turn: firstly, whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain; and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have been redressed (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 97, ECHR 2007-I, and, more recently, Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 33, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 06.02.2014 - 2689/12

  SEMIKHVOSTOV v. RUSSIA

  However, this provision does require the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012; and Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 130, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6087/03

  GRIMAILOVS v. LATVIA

  However, this provision does require the State to ensure that prisoners are detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012; and Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 130, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  MIHAILOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72608/14

  MIHAILESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 48343/16

  BIGOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  ASALYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 1167/15

  ZABELOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 80825/13

  MUSCALU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 11220/14

  MIHAILESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 16179/14

  BUTRIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  LATVIJAS JAUNO ZEMNIEKU APVIENTBA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 21694/06

  KRONKALNS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 32983/08

  MERTENA v. LATVIA