Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JEGOROVS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 16, Art. 17, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  In previous cases the Court has been reluctant to accept that such a complaint was an effective remedy where the prosecution authorities were aware of a person's situation in detention but failed to act to remedy that situation (see Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, §§ 88 and 89, 19 October 2010, and Melnitis, cited above, § 49).

  Consequently, provided that it respects the rights protected by the Convention, each Contracting State is at liberty to impose and regulate the use of its official language (see, mutatis mutandis, Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII; Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 141, 19 October 2010; and Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey, nos.

• EGMR, 07.12.2004 - 71074/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  Consequently, provided that it respects the rights protected by the Convention, each Contracting State is at liberty to impose and regulate the use of its official language (see, mutatis mutandis, Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII; Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 141, 19 October 2010; and Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  As the Court has previously held, even if an applicant were to contract tuberculosis while in detention, that in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that he received treatment for it (see Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 65, 30 September 2010, and Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 53, 30 July 2009).

• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  As the Court has previously held, even if an applicant were to contract tuberculosis while in detention, that in itself would not imply a violation of Article 3, provided that he received treatment for it (see Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 65, 30 September 2010, and Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 53, 30 July 2009).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 8543/04

  CUPRAKOVS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  Even if it were true that under the domestic law such an examination had to be carried out every twelve months, the Court is unable to agree that the prison's failure to provide an X-ray examination of the applicant in 2008 in itself raises an issue under Article 3. What is relevant here is whether the medical care provided was adequate, taking into account the applicant's state of health (see, mutatis mutandis, Cuprakovs v. Latvia, no. 8543/04, § 59, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  ILJINS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  As the Court has more recently affirmed in Iļjins v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 1179/10, 5 November 2013, § 37 and the case-law cited therein), since its judgment in Melnitis (cited above), it has received more examples in which the administrative courts have dealt with detainees" complaints about the conditions of their detention.
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  It provides, among other things, for the right to challenge administrative acts and actions of public authorities before the administrative courts (see D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 40, 29 October 2013, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 24, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  It provides, among other things, for the right to challenge administrative acts and actions of public authorities before the administrative courts (see D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 40, 29 October 2013, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 24, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 37546/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  Its relevant provisions were cited in the case of Fedosejevs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 37546/06, § 34, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 33798/05

  RUZA v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  As it has decided in previous cases, the Court need not rule on complaints raised after communication of an application to the Government (see Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, § 30, 11 May 2010 and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 38068/08

  PUCE v. LATVIA

  Also in the subsequent cases of Iļjins and Jegorovs the Court followed the same approach (see Iļjins v. Latvia (dec.), no. 1179/10, § 39, 5 November 2013 and Jegorovs v Latvia (dec.), no. 53281/08, §§ 110, 119, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 76680/17

  D v. LATVIA

  Rn. 33 In cases concerning conditions of detention in Latvian prisons, the Court has consistently held the view that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies by pursuing complaints before the administrative courts (see Jegorovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 53281/08, §§ 110-11, 1 July 2014, and Kočegarovs and Others v. Latvia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 60429/12

  ÄEURBELE v. LATVIA

  Referring to the Court's case-law (they referred to Ignats v. Latvia (dec.), no. 38494/05, § 110, 24 September 2013; Iļjins v. Latvia (dec.), no. 1179/10, § 39, 5 November 2013; Jegorovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 53281/08, §§ 110 and 119, 1 July 2014; Kočegarovs and Others v. Latvia (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  SIMANOVICS v. LATVIA

  Article 77 of the Sentence Enforcement Code (Sodu izpildes kodekss), which provides for living space in dormitory-type prison cells of no less than 2.5 m² per person for men, was cited in Jegorovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 53281/08, § 71, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 55234/21

  M.A. v. LATVIA

  In this connection, they referred to Antonovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 19437/05, § 111, 11 February 2014) and Jegorovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 53281/08, §§ 155-56, 1 July 2014) and argued that the administrative courts had also had the competence to review the Health Inspectorate's decisions and, more generally, complaints pertaining to the quality of medical care in prison.
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 27979/08

  ABOLINS v. LATVIA

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 35 of the Convention is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see Jegorovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 53281/08, § 103, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 14516/10

  [ENG]

  As more recently affirmed by the Court in Jegorovs v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 53281/08, 1 July 2014), in order to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, it is incumbent on an applicant who is complaining about conditions of detention to pursue that complaint before the administrative courts (§ 119).