Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,62594
EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,62594)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.12.2010 - 3242/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,62594)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Dezember 2010 - 3242/03 (https://dejure.org/2010,62594)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,62594) 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 ... (76)Zitiert selbst (42)

  • EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

    SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    However, relying on submissions by his former fellow inmates whose complaints about the conditions of detention in facility no. IZ-39/1 had already been examined by the Court (see, among other authorities, Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010, and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 89-99, 17 December 2009), he alleged that the cell which measured 21 square metres had had eight sleeping places and had usually housed 24 inmates.

    They noted that the Court's findings in respect of other individuals who had been detained in facility no. IZ-39/1 and had complained to the Court under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of their detention in that facility (for instance, Mr Artyomov, application no. 14146/02, or Mr Shilbergs, application no. 20075/03) were inapplicable to the circumstances of the applicant's case because neither Mr Artyomov nor Mr Shilbergs had been detained in the same cells as the applicant.

    Citing the report of the Ombudsman of the Kaliningrad Region (see paragraph 37 above), the domestic courts' judgments (see paragraphs 20 and 27 above) and the Court's findings in the cases of Artyomov v. Russia (see no. 14146/02, judgment of 27 May 2010), Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03, judgment of 17 December 2009), and Skorobogatykh v. Russia (no. 4871/03, judgment of 22 December 2009), the applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading.

    More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 on account of the detention of applicants in overcrowded conditions in detention facility no. IZ-39/1 at the time when the applicant in the present case was detained there (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010; Kositsyn v. Russia, no. 69535/01, §§ 21-31, 12 May 2010; and Shilbergs v. Russia, §§ 89-99, no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009).

    In fact, he effectively exercised that right before the Tsentralniy District Court, which held every hearing in his presence (see, by contrast, Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 108-110, 17 December 2009).

  • EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    However, relying on submissions by his former fellow inmates whose complaints about the conditions of detention in facility no. IZ-39/1 had already been examined by the Court (see, among other authorities, Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010, and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 89-99, 17 December 2009), he alleged that the cell which measured 21 square metres had had eight sleeping places and had usually housed 24 inmates.

    They noted that the Court's findings in respect of other individuals who had been detained in facility no. IZ-39/1 and had complained to the Court under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of their detention in that facility (for instance, Mr Artyomov, application no. 14146/02, or Mr Shilbergs, application no. 20075/03) were inapplicable to the circumstances of the applicant's case because neither Mr Artyomov nor Mr Shilbergs had been detained in the same cells as the applicant.

    Citing the report of the Ombudsman of the Kaliningrad Region (see paragraph 37 above), the domestic courts' judgments (see paragraphs 20 and 27 above) and the Court's findings in the cases of Artyomov v. Russia (see no. 14146/02, judgment of 27 May 2010), Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03, judgment of 17 December 2009), and Skorobogatykh v. Russia (no. 4871/03, judgment of 22 December 2009), the applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading.

    In the case of Artyomov v. Russia (no. 14146/02, §§ 111-112, 27 May 2010) the Court, in particular, held:.

    More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 on account of the detention of applicants in overcrowded conditions in detention facility no. IZ-39/1 at the time when the applicant in the present case was detained there (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010; Kositsyn v. Russia, no. 69535/01, §§ 21-31, 12 May 2010; and Shilbergs v. Russia, §§ 89-99, no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009).

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

    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 Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    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 Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

    In the absence of any explanation from the Government, the Court is unable to establish whether their failure to comply with the Court's request is, in its turn, a product of the domestic authorities' failure to keep a comprehensive record concerning the applicant's state of health and the treatment he underwent (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)) or a result of the Government's omission to enclose, in their submissions to the Court, that part of the applicant's medical record which may be considered vital evidence necessary for the examination of the complaint in so far as it contains information capable of corroborating or refuting the violation alleged by the applicant.

  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    While acknowledging that authorities must ensure that the diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik, cited above, §§ 104-106; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, cited above, § 211), the Court has also held that Article 3 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as securing for every detained person medical assistance at the same level as "in the best civilian clinics" (see Mirilashivili v. Russia (dec.), no. 6293/04, 10 July 2007).

    It is therefore bound to assess the quality of medical services rendered to the applicant in the present case and to determine whether he was deprived of adequate medical assistance as he claims and, if so, whether this amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 78, 4 October 2005).

  • EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

    YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    With all these considerations in mind and also adding to them the fact that the first two fluorography tests performed in December 1999 and June 2000 showed no pathology in the applicant's lungs, the Court considers it most probable that the applicant contracted tuberculosis in detention facility no. IZ-39/1 (see Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, § 81, 12 October 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 28 and 95, 25 October 2007; Hummatov, cited above, §§ 108 and 111; and Ghavtadze, cited above, § 86).

    In this respect the Court observes that the authorities' inability to assure a regular, uninterrupted supply of essential anti-tuberculosis drugs to patients is a key factor in tuberculosis treatment failure (see, for similar reasoning, Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 98-102, 25 October 2007).

  • EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    In this connection, the Court does not overlook the fact that the applicant was suffering from tuberculosis and thus required sufficient circulation of clean air (see, for similar reasoning, Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 46, 30 July 2009, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 51, 20 May 2010).

    However, the mere fact that a detainee is seen by a doctor and prescribed a certain form of treatment cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the medical assistance was adequate (see Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references).

  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    In this connection, the Court does not overlook the fact that the applicant was suffering from tuberculosis and thus required sufficient circulation of clean air (see, for similar reasoning, Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 46, 30 July 2009, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 51, 20 May 2010).

    While finding it particularly disturbing that the applicant's infection with tuberculosis occurred in a penitentiary institution within the State's control, as an apparent consequence of the authorities' failure to eradicate or prevent the spread of the disease, the Court reiterates its constant approach that even if an applicant had contracted tuberculosis while in detention, this in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that he received treatment for it (see Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005, and Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 53, 30 July 2009, with further references).

  • EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 4871/03

    SKOROBOGATYKH v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    Citing the report of the Ombudsman of the Kaliningrad Region (see paragraph 37 above), the domestic courts' judgments (see paragraphs 20 and 27 above) and the Court's findings in the cases of Artyomov v. Russia (see no. 14146/02, judgment of 27 May 2010), Shilbergs v. Russia (no. 20075/03, judgment of 17 December 2009), and Skorobogatykh v. Russia (no. 4871/03, judgment of 22 December 2009), the applicant insisted that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading.

    The Court is not satisfied that in the present state of the Russian law of tort claimants could reasonably expect to recover damages on proof of their allegations unless there were to be a change or at least a material development in the existing interpretation of the domestic legal provisions on tort by the Russian courts (see Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 82-91, 12 March 2009)." (see also for similar reasoning Skorobogatykh v. Russia, no. 4871/03, §§ 31-33, 22 December 2009).

  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
    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, 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, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
  • EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

    Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85
  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

    BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

    IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

    NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

    KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

    HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

    KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

    KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

    GRISHIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

    ALVER v. ESTONIA

  • EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

    BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 78145/01

    KOVALEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01

    KOSITSYN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 56786/00

    BELAN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

    ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

    BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

    BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 77116/01

    BAYBORA and OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  • EKMR, 07.05.1985 - 10626/83

    KELLY v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    The Court further observes that in some cases detainees have submitted complaints about inhuman or degrading conditions of their detention to a regional or the federal ombudsman (see, for instance, Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 67, 21 December 2010).

    Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, 21 December 2010 (IZ-39/1, Kaliningrad, 1998-2002).

  • EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

    [ENG]

    The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko, cited above, § 100; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 84, 21 December 2010; Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 85, 11 October 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), 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 Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov, cited above, § 211).

    In particular, while accepting the Government's argument that the applicant was provided with anti-tuberculosis treatment, it reiterates that the mere fact that a detainee is seen by a doctor and prescribed a certain form of treatment cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the medical assistance was adequate (see Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 89, 21 December 2010, with further references).

  • EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

    Transnistrien

    Elle rappelle à cet égard que même si l'article 3 n'autorise pas la libération d'un détenu « pour des motifs humanitaires ", elle a toujours interprété l'exigence consistant à garantir la santé et le bien-être des détenus, notamment, comme une obligation pour l'État de fournir aux détenus les soins médicaux requis (Pakhomov c. Russie, no 44917/08, § 61, 30 septembre 2010, et Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 83, 21 décembre 2010).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht