Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  It has found that no effective remedies existed in Russia for applicants who complained of ongoing deterioration of their health in view of a lack of proper medical care in detention (see, among others, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 95, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 91, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, § 80, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  It has found that no effective remedies existed in Russia for applicants who complained of ongoing deterioration of their health in view of a lack of proper medical care in detention (see, among others, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 95, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 91, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, § 80, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  It has found that no effective remedies existed in Russia for applicants who complained of ongoing deterioration of their health in view of a lack of proper medical care in detention (see, among others, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, § 95, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 91, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, § 80, 8 January 2013).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  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, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  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, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  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).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  [ENG]

  The Court observes that Russian law undoubtedly provided the applicant with the opportunity to bring proceedings in tort against the State (see Gusev v. Russia (dec.), no. 49038/12, § 24, 24 March 2015, and Mumryayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52025/13, § 14, 21 April 2015).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

  It considers that the aforementioned remedy was capable of providing redress in respect of his complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success and therefore should have been exhausted (see also Gusev v. Russia (dec.), no. 49038/12, § 24, 24 March 2015, and Mumryayev v. Russia (dec.), no. 52025/13, § 14, 21 April 2015).