Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  E.A. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  E.A. v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  Rather, in order to determine whether Article 3 of the Convention has been complied with, the Court will focus on determining whether the domestic authorities provided the applicant with sufficient medical supervision capable of effectively assessing his condition and setting up an adequate course of treatment for his diseases (see Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 108, 16 December 2010).

  Indeed, this is not the first time that the Court has had to deal with allegations of inadequate HIV-related medical care in respect of detainees in Russia (see Aleksanyan, cited above, §§ 145-158; A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 132-135, 14 October 2010; Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 108-116, 16 December 2010; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 73-77, 10 April 2012; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 102-108, 13 November 2012).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  The Court has previously examined and dismissed similar arguments on the part of the Government in relation to a similar situation (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 74-95, 13 November 2012, and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 75-91, 27 November 2012).

  The national authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care in detention facilities, including prison hospitals, are prompt and accurate, and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic, and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 95, 27 November 2012, and Sakhvadze v. Russia, no. 15492/09, § 83, 10 January 2012).

• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  Indeed, this is not the first time that the Court has had to deal with allegations of inadequate HIV-related medical care in respect of detainees in Russia (see Aleksanyan, cited above, §§ 145-158; A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 132-135, 14 October 2010; Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 108-116, 16 December 2010; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 73-77, 10 April 2012; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 102-108, 13 November 2012).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  Indeed, this is not the first time that the Court has had to deal with allegations of inadequate HIV-related medical care in respect of detainees in Russia (see Aleksanyan, cited above, §§ 145-158; A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 132-135, 14 October 2010; Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 108-116, 16 December 2010; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 73-77, 10 April 2012; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 102-108, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention 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 ensured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  A credible complaint should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question, medical prescriptions that were sought, made or refused, and some evidence - for instance, expert reports - capable of disclosing serious failings in the applicant's medical care (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, § 80, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds, save for in exceptional cases (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI, and Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001), or to place him in a civil hospital to enable him to obtain a particular kind of medical treatment.
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  The national authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care in detention facilities, including prison hospitals, are prompt and accurate, and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic, and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 95, 27 November 2012, and Sakhvadze v. Russia, no. 15492/09, § 83, 10 January 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 42184/09

  KUSHNIR v. UKRAINE

  The relevant WHO materials on an immunological evaluation of patients and application of the antiretroviral therapy can be found in the judgment in the case of E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, §§ 30-35, 23 May 2013).

  Given that their approach appeared concordant with the WHO guidelines (follow the reference in paragraph 93 above), the Court has no reasons for questioning their findings (contrast with E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, § 63, 23 May 2013).

• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  44187/04.
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 15509/12

  KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes in this connection that the WHO has also recommended that patients infected with both HIV and tuberculosis should begin antiretroviral therapy as soon as possible after starting tuberculosis treatment (see E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, § 35, 23 May 2013).

• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  Other relevant WHO materials on an immunological evaluation of patients and ART can be found in the judgment in the case of E.A. v. Russia (no. 44187/04, §§ 31-35, 23 May 2013).
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08

  M.S. v. RUSSIA

  The relevant provisions of domestic law and international documents are set out in the judgment of E.A. v. Russia (no. 44187/04, §§ 27-37, 23 May 2013).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  SOKIL v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that that it is not its task to rule on matters lying exclusively within the field of expertise of medical specialists, or to establish whether the applicant in fact required such treatment during the relevant period (see E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, § 57, 23 May 2013) and whether the choice of treatment methods appropriately reflected the applicant's needs (see Ukhan, cited above, § 76, and Okhrimenko v. Ukraine, no. 53896/07, § 71, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 35105/10

  KOLESNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see, for example, Semenova v. Russia, no. 11788/16, §§ 47-52, 3 October 2017, concerning the lack of adequate treatment for cervical cancer; Balkov v. Russia, no. 33690/12, §§ 26-31, 6 June 2017, concerning belated cataract surgery; E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, §§ 63-65, 23 May 2013, concerning inadequate HIV treatment; and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 76, 5 February 2013, concerning the authorities' failure to provide the applicant with urgent heart surgery).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 37546/06

  [ENG]

  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).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 5212/13

  SAVINOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court further reiterates that it is not its task to rule on matters lying exclusively within the field of expertise of medical specialists and to establish whether the applicant in fact required such treatment during the relevant period (see E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, § 57, 23 May 2013) and whether the choice of treatment methods appropriately reflected the applicant's needs (see Ukhan, cited above, § 76, and Okhrimenko v. Ukraine, no. 53896/07, § 71, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 58530/08

  NOGIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has previously examined and dismissed similar arguments on the part of the Government in relation to a continuous situation of absent or inadequate medical care in detention (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 74-95, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 75-91, 27 November 2012; and E.A. v. Russia, no. 44187/04, § 40, 23 May 2013).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 59705/12

  SERGEYEVA AND PROLETARSKAYA v. RUSSIA