Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 15.03.2018

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,62922
EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62922)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.05.2010 - 35581/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62922)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Mai 2010 - 35581/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62922)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,62922) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (43)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    The Court notes that on a number of occasions it has rejected similar objections by respondent governments as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of complaints about conditions of detention, when it found that such complaints pointed to problems of a structural nature in the domestic penitentiary system in question (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001, and Melnik, cited above, §§ 69-71; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 86, 10 December 2009).

    In accordance with this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his 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 Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    Nevertheless, 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 v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it has adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
     
  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it has adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik, cited above, §§ 104-106), 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 illness or preventing its aggravation, rather than addressing it on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik, cited above, §§ 104-106), 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 illness or preventing its aggravation, rather than addressing it on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and the treatment he underwent while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik, cited above, §§ 104-106), 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 illness or preventing its aggravation, rather than addressing it on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

    HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see Hummatov, cited above, § 116, and Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006).
  • EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

    HURTADO c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
    Nevertheless, 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 v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A).
  • EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 41877/21

    SIMON v. UKRAINE

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 5312/20

    RADCHENKO AND ABRAMOV v. UKRAINE

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 29857/19

    SHCHURKO AND OTRYSHKO v. UKRAINE

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
     
  • EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 55025/17

    AKHPOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 2556/18

    PISAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 69591/17

    YERUSLANOV v. RUSSIA

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 17492/16

    NUSALOVA AND LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44274/13

    BORODAY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 16984/04

    BELYAEV AND DIGTYAR v. UKRAINE

    These submissions are consistent with the similar numerous cases concerning conditions of detention in Ukrainian pre-trial detention facilities (see, for example, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 86-88, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, §§ 64-69, 12 October 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 84-89, 25 October 2007; Malenko, cited above, § 52; Koktysh, cited above, § 98-100; Visloguzov, cited above, §§ 58-61; Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, §§ 48-52, 20 May 2010; and Znaykin, cited above, §§ 49-53).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 41832/16

    KOSKO v. UKRAINE

    It has clarified in this context that the authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see, for example, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 62, 6 March 2014, with further references, and Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, § 62, 20 May 2010, with further references) and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see, inter alia, Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 74, 18 December 2008, with further references, and Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, § 70, 22 March 2016, with further references).
  • EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 50764/20

    PISOTSKYY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 9361/18

    ANDRIYANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 28714/18

    DANILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 15407/19

    KUDRYAVTSEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 2301/19

    MELESHCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 27314/20

    PONKRATENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 46298/19

    SUSLOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 29.09.2022 - 43993/19

    KRYUK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 29389/19

    YEPIKHIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 79688/16

    CHERNOUSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 1993/17

    KOZIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 21848/20

    BAYLO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 28.10.2021 - 451/13

    PARKHOMENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 25837/18

    GONCHARUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 5276/13

    POVOROZNYY v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 09.04.2020 - 65400/16

    ILCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 49614/18

    GERASIN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 19886/09

    KARDAVA v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 57240/14

    SERZHANTOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 07.03.2019 - 54503/08

    KOROL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 69176/17

    TEPLOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 81595/17

    ROMANENKO AND SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 49371/18

    KULACHINSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 19504/19

    GILEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.05.2019 - 41203/16

    LOGVINENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 82816/17

    BANCHILA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 71325/16

    KALMYKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 66139/16

    LADAN AND GULTYAYEV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 62123/16

    POLITAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 45095/19

    MIKHALEV AND SAVINOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 11.02.2021 - 2806/18

    ZAYARNYUK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 79912/13

    RAMISHVILI v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 17278/18

    SOLOPOVA v. UKRAINE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 72277/01, 23136/04, 25209/06, 65550/01, 28969/04, 32362/02, 63763/11, 37538/05, 9607/06, 43707/07, 36433/05, 35581/06, 19213/04, 30634/05, 5203/09, 42184/09, 9414/13, 29070/15, 75522/01, 30628/02, 49218/10, 30579/10, 53865/11, 16995/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,6438
EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 72277/01, 23136/04, 25209/06, 65550/01, 28969/04, 32362/02, 63763/11, 37538/05, 9607/06, 43707/07, 36433/05, 35581/06, 19213/04, 30634/05, 5203/09, 42184/09, 9414/13, 29070/15, 75522/01, 30628/02, 49218/10, 30579/10, 53865/11, 16995/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,6438)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.03.2018 - 72277/01, 23136/04, 25209/06, 65550/01, 28969/04, 32362/02, 63763/11, 37538/05, 9607/06, 43707/07, 36433/05, 35581/06, 19213/04, 30634/05, 5203/09, 42184/09, 9414/13, 29070/15, 75522/01, 30628/02, 49218/10, 30579/10, 53865/11, 16995/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,6438)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. März 2018 - 72277/01, 23136/04, 25209/06, 65550/01, 28969/04, 32362/02, 63763/11, 37538/05, 9607/06, 43707/07, 36433/05, 35581/06, 19213/04, 30634/05, 5203/09, 42184/09, 9414/13, 29070/15, 75522/01, 30628/02, 49218/10, 30579/10, 53865/11, 16995/05 (https://dejure.org/2018,6438)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,6438) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DVOYNYKH CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 23 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DVOYNYKH AGAINST UKRAINE AND 23 OTHER CASES

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

  • EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 72277/01
  • EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 72277/01
  • EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 72277/01, 23136/04, 25209/06, 65550/01, 28969/04, 32362/02, 63763/11, 37538/05, 9607/06, 43707/07, 36433/05, 35581/06, 19213/04, 30634/05, 5203/09, 42184/09, 9414/13, 29070/15, 75522/01, 30628/02, 49218/10, 30579/10, 53865/11, 16995/05
 
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 ... (9)

  • EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 26710/08

    TONCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    La Cour a par exemple admis comme preuve, dans des affaires de ce type, des déclarations écrites des codétenus ou des photographies fournies par les requérants afin d'étayer leurs allégations (Visloguzov c. Ukraine, no 32362/02, § 45, 20 mai 2010, et Golubenko c. Ukraine (déc.), no 36327/06, § 52, 5 novembre 2013).

    Force est de constater que ce grief est formulé d'une manière vague (voir, à titre de comparaison, Oukhan c. Ukraine, no 30628/02, §§ 63-66, 18 décembre 2008, et Minculescu c. Roumanie (déc.), no 7993/05, § 59, 13 novembre 2012).

  • EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 5227/18

    BOKOR c. PORTUGAL

    Au vu de ces constatations, la Cour estime que le requérant n'a pas fourni d'éléments susceptibles de démontrer que les conditions dans lesquelles il a été détenu à la prison d'Alcoentre ont atteint le seuil de gravité requis pour être constitutives d'un traitement inhumain ou dégradant au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, à titre de comparaison, Oukhan c. Ukraine, no 30628/02, §§ 63-66, 18 décembre 2008, Visloguzov c. Ukraine, no 32362/02, §§ 48-49, 20 mai 2010, et Toncu c. République de Moldova (déc.), no 26710/08, §§ 40-41, 13 novembre 2014).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

    SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    La Cour rappelle avoir estimé, dans des affaires similaires à la présente espèce, qu'un grief visant les conditions de détention doit, sauf lorsqu'il se rapporte à une « situation continue ", être introduit devant la Cour dans un délai de six mois à partir de la date à laquelle la période correspondante de détention a pris fin (voir, par exemple, Koval c. Ukraine (déc.), no 65550/01, 30 mars 2004, I.D. c. Moldova, no 47203/06, §§ 27-30, 30 novembre 2010, Idalov c. Russie [GC], no 5826/03, §§ 129-130, 22 mai 2012, et Segheti c. République de Moldova, no 39584/07, § 25, 15 octobre 2013).
     
  • EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 10921/03

    GAVRILITA c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour note que les griefs sont formulés d'une manière vague et incohérente (Trepachkine c. Russie, no 36898/03, § 85, 19 juillet 2007) et que le requérant n'a pas fourni un exposé des faits qui pourrait clarifier la nature et le degré de ses souffrances (voir mutatis mutandis Oukhan c. Ukraine, no 30628/02, §§ 63-66, 18 décembre 2008).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 78682/14

    CHANIOTIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

    Dans ces cas, il est en général attendu des requérants qu'ils soumettent au moins une liste détaillée des faits dont ils se plaignent (Visloguzov c. Ukraine, no 32362/02, § 45, 20 mai 2010).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 42821/18

    M c. FRANCE

    Se référant aux arrêts Oukhan c. Ukraine (no 30628/02, § 76, 18 décembre 2008, et Sergey Antonov c. Ukraine (no 40512/13, § 86, 22 octobre 2015), il constate que la Cour a jugé qu'il ne lui appartenait ni de se prononcer sur des questions relevant exclusivement du champ de l'expertise médicale, ni d'établir si un requérant a de fait demandé un traitement particulier ou si le choix des traitements effectués correspondait à ses besoins.
  • EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 80044/13

    N.B. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    Cependant, elle rappelle avoir jugé, sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention et relativement aux conditions de détention, qu'il appartenait aux requérants de lui fournir - dans la mesure du possible - des preuves à l'appui de leurs griefs (voir, par exemple, Visloguzov c. Ukraine, no 32362/02, § 45, 20 mai 2010, et Toncu c. République de Moldova (déc.), no 26710/08, § 38, 13 novembre 2014).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7993/05

    MINCULESCU c. ROUMANIE

    En d'autres termes, le grief est formulé d'une manière vague (voir, Trepachkine c. Russie, no 36898/03, § 85, 19 juillet 2007 et, mutatis mutandis, Oukhan c. Ukraine, no 30628/02, §§ 63-66, 18 décembre 2008).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2020 - 59756/13

    D.D. ET I.M. c. GRÈCE

    Sensible à la nature subsidiaire de sa mission, la Cour rappelle par ailleurs qu'il ne lui appartient pas de se prononcer sur des questions relevant exclusivement du champ de l'expertise médicale ni d'établir si un requérant a de fait demandé un traitement particulier ou si le choix des traitements reflétait ses besoins (Oukhan c. Ukraine, no 30628/02, § 76, 18 décembre 2008, et Sergey Antonov c. Ukraine, no 40512/13, § 86, 22 octobre 2015).
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