Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAKHOMOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  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, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  In the context of deprivation of liberty the Court has consistently stressed that, to fall under Article 3, the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering and humiliation connected with the detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 30, Series A no. 26, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  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 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, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).

 
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  In the context of deprivation of liberty the Court has consistently stressed that, to fall under Article 3, the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering and humiliation connected with the detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 30, Series A no. 26, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  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, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  Furthermore, it has to take into account not only the original application but also the additional documents intended to complete the latter by eliminating initial omissions or obscurities (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 98, Series A no. 13, as compared with § 79 and §§ 96-97 of that judgment).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  The Court reiterates in this respect that even if Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 20877/04

  TESTA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  In addition, in a situation when the authorities met with the applicant's occasional refusal to cooperate and his resistance to the treatment they offered him psychological support and attention, having provided clear and complete explanations of medical procedures, the sought outcome of the treatment and negative side-effects of interruption of treatment or irregular medication (see, by contrast, Gorodnitchev, cited above, § 91; Testa v. Croatia, no. 20877/04, § 52, 12 July 2007; and Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 80, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  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 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, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 61, 30 September 2010; and Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 83, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 13817/05

  AKSENOV v. RUSSIA

  The relevant provisions of domestic law and international reports and documents governing the health care of detainees are set out in the following judgments: A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 77-84, 14 October 2010; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, §§ 60-66 and 73-80, 27 January 2011; and Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, §§ 33-39 and 42-48, 30 September 2011.

  While finding it particularly disturbing that the activation of the applicant's infection could have occurred in a custodial institution within the State's control as an apparent consequence of the authorities" failure to eradicate or prevent the spread of the disease, the Court reiterates its consistent approach that this fact in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that the applicant received treatment for it (see Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 56, 18 October 2007; Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 53, 30 July 2009; Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 65, 30 September 2010; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 88, 21 December 2010; Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 66, 5 April 2011; and more recently, Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, § 40, 1 March 2012).