Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Nevertheless, the Court points out that in cases where detainees were unable to produce documents to support their complaints it has relied on other evidence, for example, written statements signed by eyewitnesses (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

  The Court reiterates that the authorities of the penitentiary institution should have kept a record of the applicant's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Nevertheless, in the light of Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the individual to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, the person's health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI), with the provision of the requisite medical assistance and treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 1966, §§ 64 et seq.).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Although the medical assistance available in prison hospitals may not always be at the same level as in the best medical institutions for the general public, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79).

• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Furthermore, if the authorities decide to maintain a seriously ill person in detention, they must demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions of detention that correspond to his special needs resulting from his disability (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  Where the applicant makes out a prima facie case of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions for lack of such documents, it is for the Government to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants, or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, ToÄŸcu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 76114/01

  SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05

  The Court observes at the outset that it has already examined cases concerning alleged violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of poor conditions of detention entailing high risks of contracting tuberculosis (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 98, ECHR 2002-VI, and Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 75947/11

  Russland verurteilt: Recht auf freie Wahl verletzt

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or instances of contact designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, § 48, 13 April 2006; Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 116, 7 February 2008; and Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, § 164, 12 February 2013).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  [ENG]

  In order to establish whether an applicant received the requisite medical assistance while in detention, it is crucial to determine whether the State authorities provided him with the minimum scope of medical supervision for the timely diagnosis and treatment of his illness (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 102, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  35421/05.

• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  [ENG]

  Nonetheless, having regard to its case-law on the matter, it notes that in assessing similar claims it has examined whether the authorities provided for the detainee's timely and accurate diagnosis and care (see, among other authorities, Popov, cited above, § 211; Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 102, 7 February 2008, and A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, § 128, 14 October 2010) and whether, where this was necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, the related supervision was regular and systemic and involved a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, among others, Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 54, 30 July 2009; Hummatov, cited above, § 109; and Vladimir Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 28370/05, § 58, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

  LOPATA v. RUSSIA

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 116, 7 February 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  [ENG]

  The Court is therefore not convinced by the Government's argument that the applicant did not require antiviral treatment for hepatitis C, because the materials in its possession do not allow it to establish with clarity which doctor made such a decision and on what date (see, for a similar reasoning, Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 108, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 8543/04

  CUPRAKOVS v. LATVIA

  In such circumstances the risk of reprisals by prison staff against the prisoner was very limited (contrast with Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 125, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 16984/04

  [ENG]

  The opening of letters from the Court or addressed to it undoubtedly gives rise to the possibility that they will be read and may conceivably, on occasion, also create the risk of reprisals by prison staff against the prisoner concerned (see Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 118, 30 November 2004; Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 123, 7 February 2008; and Ponushkov v. Russia, no. 30209/04, § 80, 6 November 2008).
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  DERMANOVIC v. SERBIA

  In order to establish whether the applicant received the requisite medical assistance while in detention, it is crucial to determine whether the State authorities provided him with sufficient medical supervision for a timely diagnosis and treatment of his illnesses (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 102, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

  A.B. v. RUSSIA

  In order to establish whether the applicant received the requisite medical assistance while in detention, it is crucial to determine whether the State authorities provided him with the minimum scope of medical supervision for the timely diagnosis and treatment of his illness (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and Mechenkov v. Russia, no. 35421/05, § 102, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 48343/16

  BIGOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 61183/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  KUTSENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 65544/11

  NIKOLISHEN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 43231/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 49973/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 9728/05

  [ENG]