Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  For a summary of the relevant domestic and international law provisions governing conditions of detention see Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 25-58, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  In the light of the above finding the Court sees no need to examine separately the conditions of the applicant's detention, which is simply a further aspect of his treatment by the detention authorities and adds nothing to the violation that has already been found (see, mutatis mutandis, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 177-78, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention and about the conditions of such detention (see, among many other authorities, Patranin, cited above, § 86; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 106, 4 December 2014; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Reshetnyak, cited above, §§ 65-73; Dirdizov, cited above, § 75; Koryak, cited above, §§ 86-93; and Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 101).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention and about the conditions of such detention (see, among many other authorities, Patranin, cited above, § 86; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 106, 4 December 2014; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Reshetnyak, cited above, §§ 65-73; Dirdizov, cited above, § 75; Koryak, cited above, §§ 86-93; and Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 101).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  IVKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on the general health care of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55-62, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  That fact alone has on many occasions been sufficient for the Court to dismiss an objection of non-exhaustion by the Government (see, for instance, Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, § 78, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14

  PATRANIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12

  The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 312/10

  BEKAURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 12197/08

  GABURA v. MOLDOVA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  3933/12.
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 24051/11

  [ENG]

  In the light of the above finding the Court considers that no separate examination is necessary for the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the compatibility of his state of health with his continuous detention on remand (see, mutatis mutandis, Piskunov v. Russia, no. 3933/12, § 52, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 56220/15

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  In assessing the Government's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the available avenues of domestic protection regarding the allegedly inadequate medical treatment, the Court reiterates that it has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Yunzel v. Russia, no. 60627/09, § 44, 13 December 2016; Piskunov v. Russia, no. 3933/12, § 46, 4 October 2016; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 85-88, 15 December 2015; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 26657/07

  [FRE]

  (იხ. კáƒ�ნáƒ�ვáƒ�ლჩუკი უკრáƒ�ინიáƒ. áƒáƒ�ინáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Konovalchuk v. Ukraine), № 31928/15, §§ 56-62 13 áƒ�ქტáƒ�მბერი 2016; იხ., áƒ�áƒ.ევე, იáƒ�რმáƒ�ლენკáƒ� უკრáƒ�ინიáƒ. áƒáƒ�ინáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Yermolenko v. Ukraine), № 49218/10, § 57, 15 ნáƒ�ემბერი 2012; კლიმáƒ�ვი რუáƒ.ეთიáƒ. áƒáƒ�ინáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Klimov v. Russia), № 54436/14, § 64, 4 áƒ�ქტáƒ�მბერი 2016; დáƒ� პიáƒ.კუნáƒ�ვი რუáƒ.ეთიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒ�áƒ�ღმდეგ (Piskunov v. Russia), № 3933/12, § 50, 4 áƒ�ქტáƒ�მბერი 2016).