Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
Wird zitiert von ... (27) Zitiert selbst (38)
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014; and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012).
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014; and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).Having assessed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, the Court considered that such a claim could not offer an applicant any other redress than a purely compensatory award, and could not put an end to a situation where there is an ongoing violation, such as inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014; and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 79, 13 November 2012, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012).
- EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06
ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
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 Paladi, cited above, §§ 92-106, and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 228-32, 22 December 2008, in which the Court concluded that the Russian Government had failed to honour their commitments under Article 34 of the Convention as a result of their failure to promptly transfer a seriously ill applicant to a specialised hospital and to subject him to an examination by a mixed medical panel including doctors of his choice, in disregard of an interim measure imposed by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).That standard should be "compatible with the human dignity" of a detainee, but should also take into account "the practical demands of imprisonment" (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008).
- EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
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, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
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 State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010). - EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02
VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
Had it been otherwise, the prospect of future compensation would have legitimised particularly severe suffering in breach of this core provision of the Convention (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 78, 24 July 2008). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
- EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05
WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04
YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 66583/11
BUDANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03
GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11
GORELOV (II) v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 76317/11
BUBNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
- EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94
ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05
SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03
NAYDYON v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02
OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 60776/00
POLESHCHUK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 66823/12
NIZOV v. RUSSIA
The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).The Court has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government, including those they have proposed in the present case, do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Yunzel v. Russia, no. 60627/09, §§ 44-45, 13 December 2016; Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 86-88, 15 December 2015; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09
YUNZEL v. RUSSIA
The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).In assessing the Government's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the available avenues of domestic protection regarding the allegedly inadequate medical treatment, the Court reiterates that it has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Ivko, cited above, §§ 85-88; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08
IVKO v. RUSSIA
The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, 23 July 2015; Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013).
- EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 31928/15
KONOVALCHUK v. UKRAINE
Whilst the formulation of an interim measure is one of the elements to be taken into account in the Court's analysis of whether a State has complied with its obligations under Article 34, the Court must have regard not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the interim measure indicated (see Paladi, cited above, § 91), and indeed to its very purpose (see Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, § 52, 23 July 2015). - EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 44694/13
KOLESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA
The Court further observes that it has on many occasions examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedies suggested by the Government, namely a complaint to the administration of a detention facility, a prosecutor's office or a court (see, among many other authorities, Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013). - EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04
MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA
That standard should be "compatible with the human dignity" of a detainee, but should also take into account "the practical demands of imprisonment" (see Blokhin, cited above, § 137; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008; and Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, § 69, 23 July 2015). - EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 73548/17
X AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
Accordingly, a remedy that offered the prospect of financial compensation alone, without preventing the continuation of the alleged violation, cannot be considered effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, § 86, 23 July 2015). - EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 42147/05
[ENG]
For the relevant provisions of domestic law and international reports and documents see Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 33-40, 23 July 2015). - EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06
KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA
In this connection, the Court reiterates that whilst the formulation of an interim measure is one of the elements to be taken into account in the Court's analysis of whether a State has complied with its obligations under Article 34, the Court must have regard not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the interim measure indicated (see Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, § 91, 10 March 2009, and Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, § 52, 23 July 2015) and, indeed, to its very purpose. - EGMR, 04.12.2025 - 23421/21
FERNANDEZ IRADI c. FRANCE
Si ce niveau doit être « compatible avec la dignité humaine'du détenu, il doit aussi tenir compte des « exigences pratiques de l'emprisonnement'(Blokhin, précité, § 138, Alexanian c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 140, 22 décembre 2008, et Patranin c. Russie, no 12983/14, § 69, 23 juillet 2015). - EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10
SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49106/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 29070/15
PIVOVARNIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 12646/15
MAYLENSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14
YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 24051/11
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 12987/15
KONDRULIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 8741/15
PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12
PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 49516/17
AVDIU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 56220/15
AMIROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 66231/14
DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 1647/16
KHUSEYNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 62812/12
BULAVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33690/12
BALKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 51252/09
BARSUKOV v. RUSSIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".