Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  The existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3. Indeed, the special importance attached by the Convention to this provision requires, in the Court's view, the States parties to establish, over and above a compensatory remedy, an effective mechanism to put an end to such treatment rapidly (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 98, 10 January 2012, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 48, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  53157/99, 53247/99, 56850/00 and 53695/00, 16 September 2004; and Fadayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 55723/00, 16 October 2003, the last two as regards the complaints raised under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  The existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3. Indeed, the special importance attached by the Convention to this provision requires, in the Court's view, the States parties to establish, over and above a compensatory remedy, an effective mechanism to put an end to such treatment rapidly (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 98, 10 January 2012, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 48, 28 February 2012).

• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  Such a remedy can, in principle, be both preventive and compensatory in nature (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 49, 4 October 2011).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6087/03

  GRIMAILOVS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  Conversely, in some other cases, where the Government did raise such an objection, the Court did not find it necessary to examine their non-exhaustion argument, because the applicants" complaints about medical care in prison were inadmissible on other grounds under Article 35 of the Convention (see Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, § 35, 11 May 2010; Buks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 18605/03, § 38, 4 September 2012; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 128, 25 June 2013; and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37543/06, § 46, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 8543/04

  CUPRAKOVS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  The Court examined the effectiveness of the MADEKKI review as a preventive remedy for the first time in the case of Cuprakovs v. Latvia (no. 8543/04, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 45517/04

  KRIVOSEJS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  The Court notes that in some cases against Latvia it has been able to scrutinise monitoring activity undertaken by the MADEKKI as regards the quality of medical care in prison (see Daģis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 7843/02, 20 June 2009; Krivosejs v. Latvia, no. 45517/04, 17 January 2012; Van Deilena v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50950/06, 15 May 2012; and Leitendorfs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 35161/03, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 33798/05

  RUZA v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  Conversely, in some other cases, where the Government did raise such an objection, the Court did not find it necessary to examine their non-exhaustion argument, because the applicants" complaints about medical care in prison were inadmissible on other grounds under Article 35 of the Convention (see Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, § 35, 11 May 2010; Buks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 18605/03, § 38, 4 September 2012; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 128, 25 June 2013; and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37543/06, § 46, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 50950/06

  VAN DEILENA v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  The Court notes that in some cases against Latvia it has been able to scrutinise monitoring activity undertaken by the MADEKKI as regards the quality of medical care in prison (see Daģis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 7843/02, 20 June 2009; Krivosejs v. Latvia, no. 45517/04, 17 January 2012; Van Deilena v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50950/06, 15 May 2012; and Leitendorfs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 35161/03, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 04.09.2012 - 18605/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  Conversely, in some other cases, where the Government did raise such an objection, the Court did not find it necessary to examine their non-exhaustion argument, because the applicants" complaints about medical care in prison were inadmissible on other grounds under Article 35 of the Convention (see Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, § 35, 11 May 2010; Buks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 18605/03, § 38, 4 September 2012; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 128, 25 June 2013; and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37543/06, § 46, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02

  DAGIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 35161/03

  LEITENDORFS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 27343/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 53157/99

  LEDYAYEVA, DOBROKHOTOVA, ZOLOTAREVA and ROMASHINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 71156/01

  Mitglieder der Versammlung von Gldani der Zeugen Jehovas u.a. ./. Georgien
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  ISMATULLAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 33695/03

  ZARSKIS c. LETTONIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 60429/12

  ÄEURBELE v. LATVIA

  In this connection, they referred to the Court's decisions in the cases of Antonovs v. Latvia ((dec.) no. 19437/05, § 111, 11 February 2014) and Jegorovs (cited above, §§ 155-56) and argued that the administrative courts had also had the competence to review the Health Inspectorate's decisions or, more generally, complaints pertaining to the quality of medical care in prison.
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 69086/14

  MACHINA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Although the applicant's complaints refer to concrete facts which could have been investigated (contrast Antonovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 19437/05, § 97, 11 February 2014), the national authorities did not carry out any investigation - internal, disciplinary or criminal - to assess the risk of infection in prison through dental services.
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 15028/04

  [ENG]

  The relevant domestic provisions pertaining to medical care in prisons have been summarised in Antonovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 19437/05, §§ 63-65, 67, 69-70, 11 February 2014).

• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 38068/08

  PUCE v. LATVIA

  The competence of these institutions and the domestic case-law with regard to the supervision of medical care in prisons is outlined in the case of Antonovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 19437/05, §§ 63-65, 71-79, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  [ENG]

  The functions under the domestic law of the MADEKKI and its successor, the Health Inspectorate, have been set out in the case of Antonovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 19437/05, §§ 63 et seq., 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 48435/07

  [ENG]

  At the same time the MADEKKI's primary role is to oversee the quality of medical treatment provided (see Antonovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 19437/05, §§ 109, 112 and 114, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 55234/21

  M.A. v. LATVIA

  In this connection, they referred to Antonovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 19437/05, § 111, 11 February 2014) and Jegorovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 53281/08, §§ 155-56, 1 July 2014) and argued that the administrative courts had also had the competence to review the Health Inspectorate's decisions and, more generally, complaints pertaining to the quality of medical care in prison.