Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLUBAR v. CROATIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GOLUBAR v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The Court reiterates in this respect that even if 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 part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła, cited above, § 94, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 61, 5 April 2011).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The Court reiterates that, 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 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 Kudła, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).

• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  However, Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a person on health grounds or to place him in a civil hospital to enable him to obtain specific medical treatment (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 93, 28 March 2006).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The Court further reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention imposes on the State a positive obligation to ensure that a person's health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, the provision of the requisite medical assistance and treatment (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 51, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  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, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The Court further reiterates, being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role, that it is not its task to rule on matters lying exclusively within the field of expertise of medical specialists and to establish whether an applicant in fact required a particular treatment or whether the choice of treatment methods appropriately reflected the applicant's needs (see Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 76, 18 December 2008; and Sergey Antonov, no. 40512/13, § 86, 22 October 2015).
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05

  VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The Court reiterates in this respect that even if 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 part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła, cited above, § 94, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 61, 5 April 2011).
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 66583/11

  BUDANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  In the event of diverging medical opinions on the treatment necessary to ensure adequately a prisoner's health, it may be necessary for the prison authorities and the domestic courts, in order to comply with their positive obligation under Article 3, to obtain additional advice from a medical specialist (compare Xiros, cited above, §§ 87 and 89-90; and Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, § 73, 9 January 2014).
• EGMR, 09.09.2010 - 1033/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15

  The prison authorities must offer the prisoner the treatment corresponding to the disease(s) he or she was diagnosed with (see Poghosyan v. Georgia, no. 9870/07, § 59, 24 February 2009), as prescribed by the competent doctors (see Xiros v. Greece, no. 1033/07, § 75, 9 September 2010).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 9870/07

  POGHOSSIAN c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 29597/10

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  ULEMEK v. CROATIA and 5 other applications

  Where applicants have failed to comply with that requirement, the Court has declared their applications inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see, for instance, Šimunovski v. Croatia (dec.), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011; Šebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, § 177, 28 June 2011; Miljak, cited above, §§ 36-39; Bučkal v. Croatia (dec.), no. 29597/10, § 21, 3 April 2012, and Golubar v. Croatia, no. 21951/15, §§ 30-32, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 4312/13

  TARRICONE v. ITALY

  Si ce niveau doit être « compatible avec la dignité humaine'du détenu, il doit aussi tenir compte des « exigences pratiques de l'emprisonnement'(Golubar c. Croatie, no 21951/15, § 41, 2 mai 2017, et Blokhin, précité, § 138).
• EGMR, 31.03.2026 - 12308/21

  FAUR c. ROUMANIE

  Rn. 12 S'agissant tout d'abord de l'incident que le requérant dénonce ayant eu lieu le 16 octobre 2018, 1a Cour considère que les griefs visant les mauvais traitements doivent être examinés uniquement sous l'angle de l'article 3 (voir, mutatis mutandis, Golubar c. Croatie, no 21951/15, § 25, 2 mai 2017).