Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDOSEJEVS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 37546/06

  It considers that, given the nature and seriousness of the applicant's ailments, his condition required regular and specialised medical supervision for the monitoring of the progression rate of his diseases, timely prescription of the requisite HIV and hepatitis C therapies, and timely diagnosis and treatment of possible opportunistic infections (see Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 108, 16 December 2010).
• EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 37546/06

  In such circumstances, and in the absence of any medical evidence to the contrary, the Court cannot conclude that the national authorities did not ensure proper medical supervision of the applicant's HIV infection (see, by contrast, the case of E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, §§ 63, 65, 23 May 2013, where the specific CD4 cell count test was not carried out in due time).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 77-79 and 108, 16 December 2010, and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37546/06, §§ 60-61 and 73-75, 19 November 2013.
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  SINISTAJ v. MONTENEGRO ant 2 other applications

  What needs to be established is whether the relevant domestic authorities have in a timely fashion provided all reasonably available medical care in a conscientious effort to hinder development of the disease in question (see, among many others, Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, § 61, 8 January 2013, and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37546/06, § 47, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  It appears that the medical assistance afforded to the applicant in detention took the form of a "sick call" model, with the authorities merely taking steps to address, to an extent, his increasing health problems resulting from his poorly monitored HIV condition and the questionable effectiveness of the antiretroviral therapy, without taking any proactive measures to ensure early disease detection, treatment and disease prevention (see, a contrario, Fedoseievs v. Latvia, (dec.), no. 37546/06, § 50, 19 November 2013).

• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

  BULATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  The mere fact of a deterioration in an applicant's state of health, albeit capable of raising, at an initial stage, certain doubts concerning the adequacy of the applicant's treatment in prison, cannot suffice, by itself, for the finding of a violation of the State's positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, if, on the other hand, it can be established that the relevant domestic authorities have in a timely fashion provided all reasonably available medical care in a conscientious effort to hinder development of the disease in question (see, among many others, Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, § 61, 8 January 2013, and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37546/06, § 47, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 5574/16

  PILALIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Τ&omikron; γεγ&omikron;νός και µόν&omikron; ότι η κατάσταση της υγείας τ&omikron;υ πρ&omikron;σφεÏ�γ&omikron;ντ&omikron;ς επιδεινώθηκε - αν και τ&omikron; γεγ&omikron;νός αυτό θα µπ&omikron;ρ&omikron;Ï�σε, σε πρώτ&omikron; στάδι&omikron;, να θέσει σε αµφιβ&omikron;λία την καταλληλότητα της θεραπείας π&omikron;υ έλαβε στη φυλακή - δεν αρκεί από µόν&omikron; τ&omikron;υ να καταλήξει σε παραβίαση της θετικής υπ&omikron;χρέωσης τ&omikron;υ Κράτ&omikron;υς υπό την ένν&omikron;ια τ&omikron;υ άρθρ&omikron;υ 3 της Συµβάσεως, ιδίως όταν διαπιστώνεται ότι &omikron;ι αρχές παρείχαν την απαραίτητη φρ&omikron;ντίδα σÏ�µφωνα µε τα µÎ­σα στη διάθεσή τ&omikron;υ στ&omikron; πλαίσι&omikron; ευσυνείδητης πρ&omikron;σπάθειας για να εµπ&omikron;δισθεί η εξέλιξη της εν λόγω νόσ&omikron;υ (Kalandia κατά Ελλάδ&omikron;ς, Υπ' αριθµόν 48684/15, § 69, 6 &Omikron;κτωβρί&omikron;υ 2016, Blokhin κατά Ρωσίας [Μείζ&omikron;ν&omikron;ς Συνθέσεως], Υπ' αριθµόν 47152/06, § 137, ΕΔΔΑ 2016 Λαυρεντιάδης κατά Ελλάδ&omikron;ς, Υπ' αριθµόν 29896/13, §§ 66-69, 22 Σεπτεµβρί&omikron;υ 2015, Fedosejevs κατά Λετ&omikron;νίας (απόφαση), Υπ' αριθµόν 37546/06, § 47, 19 Ν&omikron;εµβρί&omikron;υ 2013, και Jashi κατά Γεωργίας, Υπ' αριθµόν 10799 / 06, § 61, 8 Ιαν&omikron;υαρί&omikron;υ 2013).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 6215/14

  VERDES v. ROMANIA

  The mere fact of a deterioration in an applicant's state of health, albeit capable of raising, at an initial stage, certain doubts concerning the adequacy of the applicant's treatment in prison, cannot suffice, by itself, for a finding of a violation of the State's positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, if, on the other hand, it can be established that the relevant domestic authorities have in a timely fashion provided all reasonably available medical care in a conscientious effort to hinder development of the disease in question (see, among many other authorities, Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, § 61, 8 January 2013, and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37546/06, § 47, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 38068/08

  PUCE v. LATVIA

  The relevant provisions of both Regulations were cited in the case of Fedosejevs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 37546/06, §§ 33-34, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  [ENG]

  Its relevant provisions were cited in the case of Fedosejevs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 37546/06, § 34, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 17605/15

  PENDIUC v. ROMANIA

  The mere fact of a deterioration in an applicant's state of health, albeit capable of raising, at an initial stage, certain doubts concerning the adequacy of the applicant's treatment in prison, cannot suffice, by itself, for a finding of a violation of the State's positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention, if, on the other hand, it can be established that the relevant domestic authorities in a timely fashion provided all reasonably available medical care in a conscientious effort to hinder development of the disease in question (see, among many other authorities, Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37546/06, § 47, 19 November 2013, and Verdeş v. Romania, no. 6215/14, § 52, 24 November 2015).