Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;Violation of Article 3 - ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
Wird zitiert von ... (13) Zitiert selbst (45)
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
Moreover, 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 Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198, and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 22, Series A no. 112). - EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 of the Convention does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to assure the health and well-being of detainees as an obligation on the part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła, cited above, § 94; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" (see, mutatis mutandis, Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336). - EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10
Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13, § 188, 27 January 2015). - EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
Accordingly, it has recognised that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
In this connection the Court emphasises that it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role, and recognises that it must be cautious in assuming the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000). - EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09
GORBULYA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
The Court further observes that it has on many occasions examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedies suggested by the Government, namely lodging a complaint with the authorities of a detention facility, prosecutor's office or a court (see, among many other authorities, Patranin, cited above, § 86; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; and Reshetnyak, cited above, §§ 65-73). - EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
It has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically: in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 35, Series A no. 40). - EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
The Court reiterates that 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 of deprivation of liberty do not subject him or 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, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04
YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05
WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 66583/11
BUDANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 42184/09
KUSHNIR v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03
GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05
VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 2447/05
CARA-DAMIANI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11
GORELOV (II) v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 76317/11
BUBNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 25462/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
- EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94
Mord an James Bulger
- EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02
VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 34044/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 54996/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 61510/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES
52526/07. - EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10
SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
The Court has on many occasions found there to be a lack of effective domestic remedies in Russia through which to complain of the poor quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 106, 4 December 2014; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; and Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016). - EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 24051/11
[ENG]
The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain of the quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; Litvinov v. Russia, no. 32863/13, §§ 78-81, 22 March 2016; Kolesnikovich v. Russia, no. 44694/13, §§ 63-66, 22 March 2016; Ivko, cited above, §§ 85-88, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Reshetnyak, cited above, §§ 65-73; Dirdizov, cited above, § 75; and Koryak, cited above, §§ 86-93).
- EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 38777/04
[ENG]
The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; Litvinov, cited above, §§ 78-81; Gorbulya, cited above, §§ 56-58; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012). - EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 35105/10
KOLESNIKOV v. RUSSIA
The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; Litvinov, cited above, §§ 78-81; Gorbulya, cited above, §§ 56-58; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012). - EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12
KAIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and one other application
The Court has already noted the importance of a regular, uninterrupted supply of essential anti-tuberculosis drugs to patients, stating that the failure to ensure such is a key factor in tuberculosis treatment failure (see Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, § 98, 24 May 2016; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 94, 21 December 2010; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 98-102, 25 October 2007). - EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 52873/11
PETROV v. RUSSIA
The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012). - EGMR, 14.12.2017 - 70371/13
KOROTEYEV AND SITARSKIY v. RUSSIA
The Court has on many occasions established that there is a lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; Litvinov, cited above, §§ 78-81; Gorbulya, cited above, §§ 56-58; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; and Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012). - EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 24710/06
YAROVENKO v. UKRAINE
The relevant extracts from the "Treatment of Tuberculosis: Guidelines" by the World Health Organisation (fourth edition, 2009) are quoted in the Court's judgment on the case of Makshakov v. Russia (no. 52526/07, § 50, 24 May 2016). - EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 1647/16
KHUSEYNOV v. RUSSIA
The applicant explained that he had no confidence in the doctors, but the Court cannot accept this argument, as it sees no shortcomings on the part of the medical authorities which could justify such a lack of trust in the healthcare providers (see, mutatis mutandis, Vinogradov v. Russia, no. 27122/10, § 35, 7 March 2017; contrast Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, § 100, 24 May 2016). - EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 62812/12
BULAVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33690/12
BALKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 51252/09
BARSUKOV v. RUSSIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".