Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YUNZEL v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  The Court has repeatedly found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of inadequate conditions of detention in Russian custodial facilities (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012).

  The end of the applicant's stay in cell no. 512 thus triggered a separate six-month time-limit for bringing the complaint before the Court (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 75-78, 10 January 2012).

• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).

  In assessing the Government's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the available avenues of domestic protection regarding the allegedly inadequate medical treatment, the Court reiterates that it has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Ivko, cited above, §§ 85-88; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).

• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).

  In assessing the Government's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the available avenues of domestic protection regarding the allegedly inadequate medical treatment, the Court reiterates that it has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Ivko, cited above, §§ 85-88; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).

• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14

  PATRANIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).

  In assessing the Government's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the available avenues of domestic protection regarding the allegedly inadequate medical treatment, the Court reiterates that it has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Ivko, cited above, §§ 85-88; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Koryak v. Russia, (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007; and WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 18369/07

  JOSIPOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  In any event, the Court's decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, this part of the application to its list of cases should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008, and Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  IVKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on the general health care of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55-62, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13

  KHALVASH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09

  In assessing the Government's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the available avenues of domestic protection regarding the allegedly inadequate medical treatment, the Court reiterates that it has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Ivko, cited above, §§ 85-88; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 8578/12

  PAVLOVA v. RUSSIA

  The applicant is the wife of Mr Yunzel who was a defendant in criminal proceedings (see Yunzel v. Russia, no. 60627/09, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 66823/12

  NIZOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government, including those they have proposed in the present case, do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Yunzel v. Russia, no. 60627/09, §§ 44-45, 13 December 2016; Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016; Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 86-88, 15 December 2015; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 38750/20

  MURACA v. ITALY

  Rn. 25 In these circumstances, there is insufficient evidence that the temporary unavailability of repairing the dental implant resulted in suffering attracting applicability of Article 3 of the Convention (see Györgypál, cited above, § 56, and Aleksandr Vladimirovich Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 69250/11, § 52, 13 March 2014; see also, a contrario, Yunzel v. Russia, no. 60627/09, § 47, 13 December 2016, and Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86-94, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 56220/15

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  In assessing the Government's argument that the applicant failed to exhaust the available avenues of domestic protection regarding the allegedly inadequate medical treatment, the Court reiterates that it has consistently held that the remedies proposed by the Government do not satisfy the relevant criteria (see Yunzel v. Russia, no. 60627/09, § 44, 13 December 2016; Piskunov v. Russia, no. 3933/12, § 46, 4 October 2016; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 85-88, 15 December 2015; Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 49-52, 15 December 2015; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 82-88, 23 July 2015; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 82-86, 13 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).