Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PITALEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies six-month period) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the State to 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 Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 101-02, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  In particular, allegations of overcrowding in the correctional institutions have been examined on the assumption that the personal space in the dormitory must be viewed in the context of the wide freedom of movement enjoyed by detainees in correctional colonies during the daytime, which ensures that they have unobstructed access to natural light and air (see Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  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, and Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95

  POSTI AND RAHKO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  In so far as the Government objected to the examination of the conditions of the applicant's detention as a continuous situation and invited the Court not to examine the applicant's complaints relating to the period up to six months preceding the submission of his application (that is, prior to 24 March 2003), the Court reiterates that the concept of a "continuing situation" refers to a state of affairs in which there are continuous activities by or on the part of the State which render the applicant a victim (see Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-VII), and in cases where there is a continuing situation, the six-month period runs from the cessation of that situation (see Koval v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 65550/01, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  The Court recalls that it has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees who were confined to their cells for twenty-three hours a day (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 41 et seq., 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  The Court recalls that it has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees who were confined to their cells for twenty-three hours a day (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 41 et seq., 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  The authorities must also ensure that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  The Court recalls that it has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees who were confined to their cells for twenty-three hours a day (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; and Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 41 et seq., 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  The authorities must also ensure that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  The authorities must also ensure that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 76114/01

  SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE

• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 48475/09

  SAKIR c. GRÈCE

  Elles doivent aussi s'assurer que lorsqu'il est rendu nécessaire par l'état de santé du détenu, le suivi intervienne à des intervalles réguliers et inclut une stratégie thérapeutique complète tendant à obtenir le rétablissement du détenu ou, du moins, éviter que son état ne s'aggrave (Pitalev c. Russie, no 34393/03, § 54, 30 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE

  Toutefois, la Cour tient à rappeler que pareil fait ne saurait suffire à lui seul pour engager la responsabilité de l'État sous l'angle de l'article 3 de la Convention, si les autorités pénitentiaires ont pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour assurer au détenu un traitement médical adéquat (voir parmi beaucoup d'autres Alver c. Estonie, no 64812/01, § 54, 8 novembre 2005 ; Pitalev c. Russie, no 34393/03, § 53, 30 juillet 2009 ; Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 88, 21 décembre 2010).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 61744/11

  N.G. c. RUSSIE

  Il se réfère enfin aux arrêts Bordikov c. Russie (no 921/03, 8 octobre 2009), Pitalev c. Russie (no 34393/03, 30 juillet 2009), Alekhin c. Russie (no 10638/08, 30 juillet 2009), et Khatayev c. Russie (no 56994/09, 11 octobre 2011) où la Cour n'a pas trouvé de violation de l'article 3 de la Convention concernant les soins administrés aux détenus ou a rejeté des griefs similaires pour défaut manifeste de fondement.

 
• EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 20378/13

  MARTZAKLIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Elles doivent aussi s'assurer que lorsqu'il est rendu nécessaire par l'état de santé du détenu, le suivi intervienne à des intervalles réguliers et inclut une stratégie thérapeutique complète tendant à obtenir le rétablissement du détenu ou, du moins, éviter que son état ne s'aggrave (Pitalev c. Russie, no 34393/03, § 54, 30 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 10799/06

  JASHI v. GEORGIA

  In that private medical setting, the applicant underwent numerous extensive examinations and was administered, with the State bearing their cost, various cardiology drugs, as a result of which treatment his condition considerably improved and he was then discharged back to the prison on 15 May 2009 (see paragraph 43 above and contrast with, for example, Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 57, 30 July 2009, and Akhmetov v. Russia, no. 37463/04, § 81, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 32362/02

  VISLOGUZOV v. UKRAINE

  In particular, with respect to certain correctional colonies the Court has viewed such complaints in the context of the wide freedom of movement enjoyed by detainees during the daytime, which ensured that they had unobstructed access to natural light and air (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, ECHR 2001-VIII; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004; Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007; and Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, §§ 38 and 39, 30 July 2009).
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 60625/12

  HILMIOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Les autorités nationales doivent, dans ce contexte, faire en sorte que les intéressés bénéficient promptement d'un diagnostic et d'un suivi précis et qu'ils fassent l'objet, lorsque les maladies dont ils sont atteints l'exigent, d'une surveillance régulière et systématique associée à une stratégie thérapeutique globale visant à porter remède à leurs problèmes de santé ou à prévenir leur aggravation (voir, mutatis mutandis, Pitalev c. Russie, no 34393/03, § 54, 30 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 2290/14

  NOWAK c. POLOGNE

  L'État doit néanmoins suffisamment garantir la santé et le bien être des détenus, notamment en leur fournissant les soins médicaux requis (Pitalev c. Russie, no 34393/03, § 54, 30 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 13817/05

  AKSENOV v. RUSSIA

  While finding it particularly disturbing that the activation of the applicant's infection could have occurred in a custodial institution within the State's control as an apparent consequence of the authorities" failure to eradicate or prevent the spread of the disease, the Court reiterates its consistent approach that this fact in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that the applicant received treatment for it (see Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 56, 18 October 2007; Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 53, 30 July 2009; Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 65, 30 September 2010; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 88, 21 December 2010; Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 66, 5 April 2011; and more recently, Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, § 40, 1 March 2012).