Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GADAMAURI AND KADYRBEKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  The Court points out that there must be a clear causal connection between the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings or other sources of income (see, amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 285-C, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  The Court points out that there must be a clear causal connection between the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings or other sources of income (see, amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 285-C, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  The Court therefore considers that he has failed to properly substantiate his claim for pecuniary damage and accordingly dismisses it (see Romokhov, cited above, § 142; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 116, 24 July 2008; and Necdet Bulut v. Turkey, no. 77092/01, § 33, 20 November 2007).

• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 23939/02

  SHCHERBAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  Even assuming that in the present case the domestic authorities" failure to submit the above documentation had been properly accounted for (see Shcherbakov v. Russia, no. 23939/02, § 77, 17 June 2010, and Novinskiy v. Russia, no. 11982/02, § 102, 10 February 2009), the Court cannot however accept the unsupported statements by the domestic authorities as sufficiently conclusive, as they do not appear to be based on any objective data.
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 77092/01

  NECDET BULUT v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  The Court therefore considers that he has failed to properly substantiate his claim for pecuniary damage and accordingly dismisses it (see Romokhov, cited above, § 142; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 116, 24 July 2008; and Necdet Bulut v. Turkey, no. 77092/01, § 33, 20 November 2007).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  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, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  At the same time, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available both in theory and in practice at the relevant time - that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• KAG Mainz, 12.01.2012 - M 28/11

  "Einkehrtag" als beteiligungspflichtige Veranstaltung
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  41550/02.
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 10443/12

  GEYLANI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  The Court therefore concludes that the second applicant failed to properly substantiate her claims for pecuniary damage (see, mutatis mutandis, Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 60, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  [ENG]

  However, when applicants have complained of the detention authorities' failure to provide them with adequate medical services, but at the time of the complaint were no longer in the situation complained of, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; and Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011).

• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 43174/10

  [ENG]

  For its part, the Court considers that the material in its possession does not confirm that during the period under consideration surgery was a matter of averred urgency (see, by way of comparison, Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, §§ 43-53, 5 July 2011, and Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 82, 3 February 2011).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

  However, when an applicant was no longer in a situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities' failure to provide them with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 52025/13

  MUMRYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, when applicants complained of the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services when they no longer found themselves in the situation they complained about, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, when applicants complained of the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services when they no longer found themselves in the situation they complained about, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 8720/12

  PARYGINA AND BULIN v. RUSSIA

  However, when an applicant was no longer in the situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities' failure to provide him with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 9443/05

  [ENG]

  Where the applicants are no longer held in the detention facility where it was alleged that no adequate medical assistance had been made available to them, a civil claim for damages is capable of providing redress in respect of their complaints and offers reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008, and, more recently, Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, §§ 34-35, 5 July 2011).