Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZARZYCKI v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZARZYCKI v. POLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Zarzycki v. Poland

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 15351/03

  The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; and Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 55, ECHR 2009).

  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, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 15351/03

  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, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 15351/03

  More generally, the Court has stated as follows: "[Article 3] nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 15351/03

  The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; and Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 55, ECHR 2009).

• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 34739/13

  WOLKOWICZ v. POLAND

  Where the authorities decide to place and maintain in detention a person with disabilities, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to his special needs resulting from his disability (see, Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004, and Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013).

  It cannot be said therefore that the authorities failed in their obligations to the applicant and left him to rely entirely on the availability and goodwill of his fellow prisoners (see, mutatis mutandis, Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 116, 12 March 2013).

• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle rappelle que lorsque les autorités nationales décident de placer ou de maintenir en détention une personne invalide, elles doivent veiller avec une rigueur particulière à ce que les conditions de sa détention répondent aux besoins spécifiques de son infirmité (Price c. Royaume-Uni, no 33394/96, § 25, CEDH 2001-VII, Farbtuhs c. Lettonie, no 4672/02, § 56, 2 décembre 2004, et Zarzycki c. Pologne, no 15351/03, § 102, 12 mars 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 10401/12

  HELHAL c. FRANCE

  Lorsque les autorités nationales décident de placer ou de maintenir en détention une personne invalide, elles doivent veiller avec une rigueur particulière à ce que les conditions de sa détention répondent aux besoins spécifiques de son infirmité (Price c. Royaume-Uni, no 33394/96, § 25, CEDH 2001-VII ; Farbtuhs c. Lettonie, no 4672/02, § 56, 2 décembre 2004 ; Zarzycki c. Pologne, no 15351/03, § 102, 12 mars 2013).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 18607/17

  YARNYKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It reiterates in particular, that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in securing detention conditions which correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see Butrin, cited above § 49; Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, § 72, 6 February 2014; Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 20509/17

  IVANTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It reiterates in particular, that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in securing detention conditions which correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see Butrin, cited above § 49; Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, § 72, 6 February 2014; Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 52548/17

  PESTRIKOVA v. RUSSIA

  It reiterates in particular, that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in securing detention conditions which correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see Butrin, cited above § 49; Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, § 72, 6 February 2014; Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 65196/16

  NORMANTOWICZ v. POLAND

  Within this context, the Court reiterates (citing its previous rulings in Polish cases) that no civil action against a prison or a prison doctor can offer a detainee reasonable and timely prospects of securing more adequate medical care or his or her release from detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaprykowski, cited above, §§ 54-57; Kulikowski v. Poland (no. 2), no. 16831/07, § 52, 9 October 2012; Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 89, 12 March 2013; and Slawomir Musial, cited above, § 77).
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 78851/16

  MICHALSKI v. POLAND

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 in the context of delayed non-emergency medical procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, 12 March 2013; Todorov v. Ukraine, no. 16717/05, 12 January 2012; Dumikyan v. Russia, no. 2961/09, 13 December 2016; and Bujak v. Poland, no. 686/12, 21 March 2017) and of Article 6 in the context of the restriction of the right of access to a court on account of excessive court fees (Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, ECHR 2001-VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, 26 July 2005, Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland, no. 73547/01, 26 July 2005; Kniat v. Poland, no. 71731/01, 26 July 2005 and Irena Stall v. Poland (strike out) no. 5274/06, 10 March 2009).