Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISAYEV v. UKRAINE

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 28827/02
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 30.10.1998 - 28616/95

  STYRANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after 11 September 1997, account must be taken of the state of proceedings on that date (see, mutatis mutandis, Milosevic v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 15056/02, § 21, 20 April 2006; Styranowski v. Poland, no. 28616/95, § 46, ECHR 1998-VIII; Foti and Others v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, § 53).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  In this respect the Court reiterates that, although the persistence of a reasonable suspicion is a condition sine qua non for the initial detention, after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices (see, as a classic authority, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  In such cases it is up to the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  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; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular the question of whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  In exceptional cases, where the state of a detainee's health is absolutely incompatible with detention, Article 3 may require the release of such a person under certain conditions (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, CEDH 2001-VI; Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  In the absence of such explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  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; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  There are three particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of the applicant's health with his stay in detention: (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention; and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the applicant's state of health (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  In Farbtuhs v. Latvia (no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004) the Court noted that if the authorities decided to place and maintain a seriously ill person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions of detention that correspond to his special needs resulting from his disability.
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 15056/02

  MILOSEVIC v.
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03

  HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE