Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SERGEY ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  The Court has emphasised on a number of occasions that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  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 Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), that diagnosis and care are delivered promptly and accurately (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and Hummatov, cited above, § 115), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition supervision is regular, systematic and involves a comprehensive treatment strategy aimed at helping the detainee to recover or preventing the aggravation of his condition, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  A lack of appropriate medical care may thus amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, 29 November 2007; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, 18 December 2008; and Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, 21 October 2010).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  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 Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), that diagnosis and care are delivered promptly and accurately (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and Hummatov, cited above, § 115), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition supervision is regular, systematic and involves a comprehensive treatment strategy aimed at helping the detainee to recover or preventing the aggravation of his condition, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  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 Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), that diagnosis and care are delivered promptly and accurately (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; and Hummatov, cited above, § 115), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition supervision is regular, systematic and involves a comprehensive treatment strategy aimed at helping the detainee to recover or preventing the aggravation of his condition, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  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, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

  GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  At the same time the State's obligation to cure a seriously ill detainee is one as to means, not as to result (due diligence test) (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 71, 4 October 2011).

• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 62303/13

  Bayerns Justiz verletzte Menschenrechte

  Im Bewusstsein des subsidiären Charakters seiner Position weist der Gerichtshof außerdem erneut darauf hin, dass es nicht seine Aufgabe ist, über ausschließlich in das Fachgebiet von medizinischen Sachverständigen fallende Angelegenheiten zu entscheiden und festzustellen, inwieweit ein Beschwerdeführer tatsächlich eine bestimmte Behandlung benötigte oder ob die gewählten Behandlungsmethoden im Hinblick auf die Bedürfnisse des Beschwerdeführers angemessen waren (…siehe Ukhan./. Ukraine, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30628/02, Rdnr. 76, 18. Dezember 2008; und Sergey Antonov [./. Ukraine], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 40512/13, Rdnr. 86, 22. Oktober 2015).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 5312/20

  RADCHENKO AND ABRAMOV v. UKRAINE

  13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention (see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 40512/13, §§ 94-97, 22 October 2015).

  13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention (see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 40512/13, §§ 94-97, 22 October 2015).

• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 549/17

  URBONAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Ill-treatment must, however, attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 40512/13, § 70, 22 October 2015).

 
• EGMR, 07.03.2019 - 54503/08

  KOROL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-05, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-06, 28 March 2006; Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14 October 2010; Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 40512/13, §§ 76-90, 22 October 2015; and Pivovarnik v. Ukraine, no. 29070/15, §§ 37-46, 6 October 2016).
• 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, 16.05.2019 - 41203/16

  LOGVINENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-05, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), and Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 40512/13, §§ 76-90, 22 October 2015).
• 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).
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 17278/18

  SOLOPOVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-05, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Melnik v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 104-06; Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 68-78, 14 October 2010; Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 40512/13, §§ 76-90, 22 October 2015; and Pivovarnik v. Ukraine, no. 29070/15, §§ 37-46, 6 October 2016).