Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DRAGAN v. ROMANIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DRAGAN v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his or her treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's illnesses or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban, cited above, § 79; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 110, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his or her treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's illnesses or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban, cited above, § 79; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).

• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his or her treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's illnesses or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban, cited above, § 79; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 110, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 1285/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  In addition, having in mind the applicant's psychiatric pathology (see paragraph 39 above), the Court recalls that it has previously held in cases involving people with mental disabilities that consideration has to be given to their vulnerability, in particular their inability in some cases to plead their case coherently (see V.D., cited above, § 87, and B. v. Romania (no.2), no. 1285/03, § 78, 19 February 2013).
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 45566/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  Indeed, the State's obligation to cure a seriously ill detainee is one of means, not of result (see, among other authorities, Goloshvili v. Georgia, no. 45566/08, § 38, 20 November 2012 and Cirillo, cited above, § 37).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  The relevant parts of the reports issued by the Romanian Helsinki Committee following their visits to Rahova and Jilava Prisons are quoted in Iacov Stanciu v. Romania (no. 35972/05, §§ 146-58, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II, and Todireasa v. Romania (No.2), no. 18616/13, § 54, 21 April 2015).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  The State must ensure that given the practical demands of imprisonment, the health and well-being of a detainee are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him/her with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05 § 90, 4 October 2005; and Cirillo v. Italy, no. 36276/10, § 35, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 2447/05

  CARA-DAMIANI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 36513/12

  ENASOAIE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  TOMA BARBU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 19832/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 18616/13

  TODIREASA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 49549/11

  COTLET v. ROMANIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  D.M.D. v. ROMANIA

  In line with its consistent case-law (see, notably, Serban Marinescu v. Romania, no. 68842/13, §§ 78-80, 15 December 2015, and Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 99-102, 2 February 2016), the Court rejects the claim made by the APADOR-CH, as this association did not represent the applicant in the current proceedings.
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 41995/14

  CIUPERCESCU v. ROMANIA

  In these circumstances, and having regard to the relatively short period of time in question (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above), the Court considers that, notwithstanding the regrettable shortcomings mentioned in paragraph 96 above, the treatment complained of cannot be considered as having caused the applicant suffering attaining the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see, by way of contrast, Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86-94, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Il ne ressort pas de ce document que le requérant se soit plaint de problèmes dentaires ou ait demandé à voir un dentiste (voir, a contrario, Drăgan c. Roumanie, no 65158/09, § 89, 2 février 2016).

• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 70040/13

  STANCIU v. ROMANIA

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim made in respect of APADOR-CH, as this association did not represent the applicant in the current proceedings (see, notably, Şerban Marinescu v. Romania, no. 68842/13, §§ 78-80, 15 December 2015, and Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 99-102, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 37075/14

  BRAGADIREANU c. ROUMANIE

  Les dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce en matière d'assistance médicale dentaire en prison sont décrites dans l'affaire Drăgan c. Roumanie (no 65158/09, §§ 56-59, 2 février 2016).
• EGMR, 26.06.2025 - 39150/20

  BENYUKH v. UKRAINE

  In a number of similar cases, the Court has found violations of Article 3 in situations where the delay exceeded three years or more (see Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 37075/14, § 55, 8 November 2016; Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, § 86, 2 February 2016; Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, §§ 181 and 185, 24 July 2012; Fane Ciobanu v. Romania, no. 27240/03, §§ 82-84, 11 October 2011; and V.D. v. Romania, cited above, §§ 94 and 98).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 60450/13

  A.C. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  41995/14 and 50276/15, § 98, 7 January 2020; by way of contrast, Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86-94, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 50702/17

  MIHAILESCU v. ROMANIA and 1 other application

  The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons have been summarised by the Court in Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, 23 March 2016, with further references therein; see also Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, §§ 62-63, 23 July 2013, and Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 82-85, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 80825/13

  MUSCALU v. ROMANIA

  The Court observes that, in respect of dental care, the case at hand differs significantly from the situation examined in the case of Drăgan v. Romania (no. 65158/09, §§ 82-94, 2 February 2016) where the applicant, a mentally-ill detainee, had lost almost 70% of his teeth and had developed chronic apical periodontitis, generalised stomatitis, an ulcer and gastroduodenitis because of the authorities' failure for almost five years to act on his doctor's recommendation that he be given a dental prosthesis and moved to a semi-liquid or liquid diet.
• 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 - 51957/20 (anhängig)

  GÜMÜŞ v. TÜRKİYE and 1 other application