Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,55428
EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55428)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.11.2012 - 24677/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55428)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. November 2012 - 24677/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55428)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55428) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    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 of deprivation of liberty 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 Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    The Court reiterates in this regard that even though 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 Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
     
  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

    BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04

    BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 22107/03

    ANTROPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    Moreover, the Court has already seen cases in which an applicant complained to a prosecutor but his complaint did not elicit any response (see Antropov v. Russia, no. 22107/03, § 55, 29 January 2009).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08

    KOKOSHKINA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

    SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

    ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
    42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 113-118, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

    GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

    KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 55929/00

    MARIE-LOUISE LOYEN ET AUTRE c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02

    THÉVENON c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 44574/98

    Kovacic u. a. ./. Slowenien

  • EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

    KHADZHIALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 16510/06

    ANGELOV AND ANGELOVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

    SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

    VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 37996/14

    BAYKOVA c. RUSSIE

    Les dispositions pertinentes du code civil relatives à l'action en réparation du préjudice, et celles du chapitre 25 du CPC sont résumées dans l'arrêt Koryak c. Russie (no 24677/10, §§ 49-57, 13 novembre 2012).

    La Cour a déjà dit qu'une action en réparation du préjudice constitue un recours effectif à épuiser pour un dommage causé par les autorités (Smagilov c. Russie (déc.), no 24324/05, §§ 44-48, 13 novembre 2014 ; voir, a contrario, Koryak c. Russie, no 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 novembre 2012, concernant une situation continue d'absence de soins médicaux en milieu carcéral).

  • EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 26432/13

    ZAVARZIN c. RUSSIE

    D'autres dispositions internes pertinentes 26. Les dispositions pertinentes de la loi fédérale relative au parquet, ainsi que les dispositions pertinentes du code de procédure civile relatives aux recours contre les actes et décisions des autorités sont exposées dans les arrêts Koryak c. Russie (no 24677/10, §§ 46-54, 13 novembre 2012) et Roman Zakharov c. Russie ([GC], no 47143/06, §§ 70-73 et 92-100, CEDH 2015).

    Elle rappelle avoir déjà jugé que la saisine du parquet ne constituait pas de voie de recours effective en ce que les réactions de cette institution avaient un caractère plutôt déclaratif et ne pouvaient pas aboutir directement à un redressement ou un rétablissement des droits des requérants (voir, dans le contexte des soins médicaux en détention, Koryak c. Russie, no 24677/10, §§ 80-81, 13 novembre 2012 et les références qui y sont citées).

  • EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 22254/14

    ERMÉNYI v. HUNGARY

    In accordance with its case-law and considering that the present application involves an important question of general interest, namely, the compatibility with the Convention of the dismissal of the Vice-President of a high national court, the Court finds that the heirs have standing to continue the application in the applicant's stead (see, for instance and mutatis mutandis, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, §§ 25-26, ECHR 2003-IX; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 68, 13 November 2012; and Romankevic v. Lithuania, no. 25747/07, § 16, 2 December 2014).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht