Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAKHVADZE v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sakhvadze v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the plausibility of the applicant's allegations (see, in various contexts, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV; Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, §§ 27-35, 23 September 2010; and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 65-67, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  As to domestic remedies, the Court has previously stated, for instance in the context of Article 2 of the Convention, that if an infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation imposed by Article 2 to set up an effective judicial system does not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; see also, in the context of Article 3 of the Convention, Yazgül Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 36369/06, §§ 56 and 57, 1 February 2011).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see, among others, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 26, ECHR 2004-VII; and Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 168).

• EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

  X c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  Also, while noting that the applicant was able to benefit from legal representation and that the national courts acknowledged a number of shortcomings in the course of the domestic inquiry, the Court observes with concern that this inquiry spanned over two years, which is worrisome when an individual's current and serious medical conditions and medical care are at issue (see X v. France, 31 March 1992, §§ 31-49, Series A no. 234-C).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see, among others, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 26, ECHR 2004-VII; and Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 168).
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  Without establishing the truthfulness of each and every allegation made by the applicant, the Court has previously chosen in conditions-of-detention cases to concentrate on the allegations that have not been disputed by the respondent Government, or those in respect of which the Government did not comment, although they had been clearly and consistently formulated before the domestic authorities and later before the Court (see Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 85, 19 July 2007, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, § 73, 18 June 2009).
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  The national authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care in detention facilities, including prison hospitals, are prompt and accurate, and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at ensuring the detainee's recovery or at least preventing his or her condition from worsening (see Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 54, 30 July 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 34449/03

  SHULEPOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  An opinion given by a court-appointed expert is likely to carry significant weight in the judicial assessment of the issues within that expert's competence (see, albeit in the context of Article 6 of the Convention, Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, § 62, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the plausibility of the applicant's allegations (see, in various contexts, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV; Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, §§ 27-35, 23 September 2010; and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 65-67, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  Without establishing the truthfulness of each and every allegation made by the applicant, the Court has previously chosen in conditions-of-detention cases to concentrate on the allegations that have not been disputed by the respondent Government, or those in respect of which the Government did not comment, although they had been clearly and consistently formulated before the domestic authorities and later before the Court (see Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 85, 19 July 2007, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, § 73, 18 June 2009).
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 36369/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 33929/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 31001/03

  FLUX v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 4871/03

  SKOROBOGATYKH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 11406/11

  NEAGU c. ROUMANIE

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle que l'article 3 de la Convention impose à l'État de s'assurer que tout prisonnier est détenu dans des conditions qui sont compatibles avec le respect de la dignité humaine, que les modalités d'exécution ne soumettent pas l'intéressé à une détresse ou à une épreuve d'une intensité qui excède le niveau inévitable de souffrance inhérent à la détention et que, eu égard aux exigences pratiques de l'emprisonnement, la santé et le bien-être du prisonnier sont assurés de manière adéquate, notamment par l'administration des soins médicaux requis (Sakhvadze c. Russie, no 15492/09, § 80, 10 janvier 2012 et Paladi c. Moldova [GC], no 39806/05, § 71, 10 mars 2009).

  De surcroît, pendant toute cette période, les autorités nationales ont fourni au requérant le traitement médical prescrit par les spécialistes et ont pratiqué une surveillance régulière pour éviter la détérioration de son état de santé, qui est d'ailleurs resté stable (Sakhvadze c. Russie, no 15492/09, § 83, 10 janvier 2012).

• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  15492/09.
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 26746/05

  [ENG]

  A credible and reasonably detailed description of the allegedly degrading conditions of detention constitutes a prima facie case of ill-treatment and serves as a basis for giving notice of the complaint to the respondent Government (see also Sakhvadze v. Russia, no. 15492/09, § 87, 10 January 2012).

• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07

  MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  An applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the conditions of his or her detention mentioning the specific factors, such as the dates of his or her transfer between facilities, which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds (see Sakhvadze v. Russia, no. 15492/09, § 87, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08

  M.S. v. RUSSIA

  The national authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care in detention facilities, including prison hospitals, are prompt and accurate, and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic, and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 95, 27 November 2012, and Sakhvadze v. Russia, no. 15492/09, § 83, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 76695/11

  UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA

  A credible complaint should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question, the medical attention that was sought, given or refused, and some evidence - for instance, expert reports - capable of disclosing serious failings in the care afforded to the applicant (see Sakhvadze v. Russia, no. 15492/09, § 88, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 29896/13

  LAVRENTIADIS c. GRÈCE

  En outre, lorsque l'état de santé l'exige, le suivi médical doit se faire à des intervalles régulières et comporter un traitement adapté, destiné à le guérir ou du moins empêcher la dégradation de cet état (Khatayev c. Russie, no 56994/09, § 85, 11 octobre 2011 ; Sakhvadze c. Russie, no 15492/09, § 83, 10 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 43174/10

  [ENG]

  The national authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care in detention facilities, including prison hospitals, are prompt and accurate, and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at ensuring the detainee's recovery or at least preventing his or her condition from worsening (see Sakhvadze v. Russia, no. 15492/09, § 83, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 10067/11

  [FRE]

  15492/09, 10 Ιαν&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2012 και Vladimir Vasilyev κατά Ρωσίας, αριθ.
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 42294/13

  BELAN AND SVIDERSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court does not need to determine whether the above-mentioned procedure should be taken into account for the purpose of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, albeit in the context of issues under Article 3 of the Convention, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 102-104, 10 January 2012; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 80-81, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 76-77, 27 November 2012; and compare with Sakhvadze v. Russia, no. 15492/09, §§ 67-68, 10 January 2012), in particular, as regards any reasonable prospect of success after an arrested defendant's final conviction for an administrative offence.
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 63054/13

  PAPASTAVROU c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 25462/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 28917/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 8810/11

  [FRE]