Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McGLINCHEY ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 13 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.05.2000 - 50390/99
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  Under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, her health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing her with the requisite medical assistance (see, mutatis mutandis, Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 1966, §§ 64 et seq., and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

  In the specific context of conditions of detention, the Court has held, inter alia, that while Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds, the Article obliges States to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, the health and well-being of a prisoner are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him or her with the requisite medical assistance (see, for example, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  In the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be part of the range of available remedies (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  But I would add immediately that in the Court's view "the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3" (see V. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  But I would add immediately that in the Court's view "the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3" (see V. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  See also the recent Mouisel v. France (no. 67263/01, ECHR 2002-IX) in which the Court unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of treatment and continued detention of a person suffering from an incurable illness.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  The applicants' complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52; Kaya, cited above, pp. 330-31, § 107; and Yaşa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2442, § 113).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10

  [ENG]

  Accordingly, while Article 3 cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it imposes an obligation on the State to assure the requisite protection of the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, for example, providing them with appropriate medical assistance (Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 112, 11 July 2006).

  The Court considers that the severity of the applicant's suffering was such as to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (for example, McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, ECHR 2003-Vl; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006).

• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  He referred to comparable awards in the cases of Peers v. Greece (no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III, 5,000,000 Greek drachmas [approximately EUR 14, 600]) and McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 50390/99, ECHR 2003-V, EUR 11, 500).
• OLG München, 05.06.2012 - 4 Ws 103/12

  Strafvollzug in Bayern: Ablehnung einer Dauersubstitution mit Methadon, …

  So ist in Baden-Württemberg seit Juli sogar die Behandlung mit dem Heroin-Derivat Diamorphin zugelassen und der EGMR verurteilte Großbritannien 2003 wegen Verstoßes gegen Art. 3 EMRK, nachdem eine Gefangene an Komplikationen im Zusammenhang mit nicht behandelten Entzugserscheinungen verstorben war (Mc-Glinchey u.a.v. the United Kingdom, Verfahren 50390/99, Urteil vom 29.04.2003).

• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 69332/01

  Isolationshaft (Einzelhaft; Kontaktsperre; konkrete Begründung und …

  Rn. 234 99. The Court recalls that the authorities are under an obligation to protect the health of persons deprived of liberty and the lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see, among others, McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 57, ECHR 2003-V, and Ilhan v. Turkey (GC), no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  ABDULSAMET YAMAN v. TURKEY

  The applicant's complaint in this regard is therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 64, 29 April 2003, and the above-cited Yasa judgment, § 112).
• EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 44033/17

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  On the basis of the evidence before it and assessing the relevant facts as a whole, the Court does not find it established that the fourth applicant was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contained in Article 3 of the Convention (see, conversely, McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  The provided remedy must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 62, ECHR 2003-V, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 44093/98

  ÇELIK AND IMRET v. TURKEY

  This applicant's complaint in this regard is therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 in connection with Article 3 of the Convention (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 64, 29 April 2003; Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2442, § 112).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 34140/07

  [ENG]

  In relation to compensation, the Court reiterates that in the event of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of possible remedies (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  [ENG]

  The Court has also held, more generally, that, as regards arguable complaints under Article 3, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be part of the range of redress (see, ibid., as well as McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2003-V, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 217-18, ECHR 2012-...).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 24527/08

  M.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 46286/99

  HACI ÖZEN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  GORELOV (II) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2005 - 63181/00

  KARAYIGIT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 22682/02

  REGGIANI MARTINELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 39780/06

  KOTSAFTIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 49218/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 27695/03

  SERIFIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 18207/03

  NEVRUZ KOÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 67137/01

  YAVUZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 40154/98

  MEHMET EMIN YÜKSEL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 40818/09

  HOLOUBEK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 41653/05
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 77766/01

  DZIECIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 56003/00

  ASAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 68625/01

  MARTINELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 19826/03

  SISIC c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 12101/03

  DURMUS KURT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 11100/10 (anhängig)

  MURUGOV v. RUSSIA