Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAPRYKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 23052/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05

  However, this provision does require the State to ensure that prisoners are 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 them to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79, and Mouisel, cited above, § 40).

• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05

  Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the detention of a person who is ill may raise issues under Article 3 of the Convention (see Mouisel v. France no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05

  The Court must determine whether during his detention in Poznan Remand Centre from 18 May until 12 July 2005, from 5 January 2006 until an unspecified date, presumably 20 March 2006, and from 9 May until 30 November 2007 the applicant needed regular medical assistance, whether he was deprived of it as he claims and, if so, whether this amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 53, 2 December 2004, and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 78, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05

  The Court must determine whether during his detention in Poznan Remand Centre from 18 May until 12 July 2005, from 5 January 2006 until an unspecified date, presumably 20 March 2006, and from 9 May until 30 November 2007 the applicant needed regular medical assistance, whether he was deprived of it as he claims and, if so, whether this amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 53, 2 December 2004, and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 78, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 40679/98

  DANKEVICH v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05

  In that context the Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, the purpose of the domestic remedies rule in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention 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 Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 107, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 65653/01

  NITECKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 23052/05

  The Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee a right to receive medical care which would exceed the standard level of health care available to the population generally (see Nitecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen