Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KEENAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
Non-violation de l'art. 2 Violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 13 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
No violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 22.05.1998 - 27229/95
- EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 27229/95
Wird zitiert von ... (72) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
In that connection, I find a comparison with Kudla v. Poland ([GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI), in which the Court did not find a violation of Article 3, very illuminating.The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him 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 health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 94 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42117/98
BOLLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
The decisive point is whether there were physical or mental indications which rendered or should have rendered the prison authorities aware that there was a risk of any acute or severe suffering as a result of the measure (see Bollan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42117/98, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
The Court had also found that the right to petition the Home Secretary was an effective remedy in Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 43, § 116).
- EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
She referred to the Court's case-law which emphasised the position of inferiority and powerlessness of mental patients (see, for example, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, pp. 25-26, § 82). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, which obligation is particularly stringent where that individual dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90
HURTADO c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
It is relevant in the context of the present application to recall also that the authorities are under an obligation to protect the health of persons deprived of liberty (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
For example, in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 38, and Tekin, cited above, pp. 1517-18, § 53). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
The applicant's complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 in connection with both Articles 2 and 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 Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2442, § 113).
- BVerfG, 24.07.2018 - 2 BvR 309/15
Fixierung in psychiatrischer Unterbringung: Richtervorbehalt erforderlich?
Erniedrigend ist eine Behandlung, die dem Betroffenen in einer demütigenden oder entwürdigenden Weise das Gefühl von Angst, Schmerz oder Minderwertigkeit vermittelt, das über das mit rechtmäßiger Bestrafung unvermeidliche Maß hinausgeht, wobei eine Demütigungsabsicht mit zu berücksichtigen ist (vgl. EGMR , Labita v. Italy, Urteil vom 6. April 2000, Nr. 26772/95, § 120; EGMR , Kudla v. Poland, Urteil vom 26. Oktober 2000, Nr. 30210/96, § 92; EGMR, Keenan v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 3. April 2001, Nr. 27229/95, § 110; EGMR, Price v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 10. Juli 2001, Nr. 33394/96, § 24; EGMR, Mouisel v. France, Urteil vom 14. November 2002, Nr. 67263/01, § 37).Die menschliche Würde ist nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs beeinträchtigt, wenn die Person, der die Freiheit entzogen ist, körperlicher Gewalt ausgesetzt wird, deren Anwendung nicht durch ihr eigenes Verhalten notwendig geworden ist (vgl. EGMR , Labita v. Italy, Urteil vom 6. April 2000, Nr. 26772/95, § 120; EGMR, Keenan v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 3. April 2001, Nr. 27229/95, § 113; EGMR, Bures v. The Czech Republic, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2012, Nr. 37679/08, § 86).
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
The suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, physical or mental, may be covered by Article 3, where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by treatment, whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion or other measures, for which the authorities can be held responsible (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 116, ECHR 2001- III; Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 30, ECHR 2001-VII). - EGMR, 28.09.2015 - 23380/09
BOUYID v. BELGIUM
Furthermore, the Court had specified that where the absence of such strict necessity had been established, there was no need to assess the severity of the suffering caused in order to find a violation of Article 3 (it referred to Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 113, ECHR 2001-III); where such necessity had been established, all the decisive factors were taken into account, including the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, as well as his or her particular vulnerability; and detained persons were vulnerable because they were under the absolute control of the police or prison staff.
- EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 20999/05
Unmenschliche und erniedrigende Behandlung durch eine Nacktunterbringung in einer …
Eine Behandlung wurde dann als "erniedrigend" erachtet, wenn sie bei den Opfern Gefühle der Angst, Qual und Unterlegenheit hervorrief, die geeignet waren, sie zu demütigen und zu entwürdigen und möglicherweise ihren körperlichen oder moralischen Widerstand zu brechen (…siehe Hurtado ./. Schweiz, 28. Januar 1994, Stellungnahme der Kommission, Rdnr. 67, Serie A Band 280), oder wenn das Opfer dazu gebracht wurde, gegen seinen Willen oder sein Gewissen zu handeln (siehe z.B. Dänemark, Norwegen, Schweden und Niederlande ./. Griechenland (der "Fall Griechenland"), Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 3321/67, 3322/67, 3323/67 und 3344/67, Bericht der Kommission vom 5. November 1969, Jahrbuch 12, S. 186 und Keenan ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 27229/95, Rdnr. 110, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Furthermore, 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 available as part of the range of redress (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V, and Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 129, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08
BURES v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The Court has recognised the special vulnerability of mentally ill persons in its case-law and the assessment of whether the treatment or punishment concerned is incompatible with the standards of Article 3 has, in particular, to take into consideration this vulnerability (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III, Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 99, 21 July 2005 and Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 120, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).The domestic authorities thus failed in their obligation to protect the health of persons deprived of their liberty (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III, and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 60, 21 December 2010).
- EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 14326/11
BANEL v. LITHUANIA
For a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual and that, if so, they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see, amongst other authorities, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 90, ECHR 2001-III)."For a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk" (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 90, ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11
BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA
According to the Court's case-law, in the event of a breach of Articles 2 and 3, 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 Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 97-98, ECHR 2002-II and Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, §§ 24-25, 20 July 2010). - EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00
DOUGLAS-WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
She was not a dependent for the purpose of the 1976 Act and the 1934 Act only covered injuries or ill-treatment short of death (see, concerning similar circumstances, no. 27229/95, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, (Sect. 3) ECHR 2001, § 128).This may extend in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see the Osman v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, § 115) or from risks to their health arising from other circumstances under the responsibility of a public authority (see no. 27229/95, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, (Sect. 3), to be published in ECHR 2001, §§ 90-92).
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
MIZIGÁROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
The authorities' obligation to account for an individual in custody is particularly stringent where that individual dies (Salman v. Turkey, cited above, at § 99; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 91, ECHR 2001-III).Moreover, in addition to the obligation on States to account for injuries or deaths in police custody, the Court recalls that the State is also under a positive obligation to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the health and well-being of persons in detention are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI) and taking reasonable measures to minimise a known suicide risk (Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99
BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12
ADEN AHMED v. MALTA
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10
P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 52955/99
HUYLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09
KARPISIEWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 24014/05
MUSTAFA TUNÇ ET FECIRE TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12
M.S. v. CROATIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 5608/05
RENOLDE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 23944/04
EREMIASOVA AND PECHOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 7510/04
KONTROVA c. SLOVAQUIE
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 22999/06
POGHOSYAN ET BAGHDASARYAN c. ARMENIE
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02
DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 60255/00
PEREIRA HENRIQUES c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 58447/00
ZAVOLOKA c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00
DODOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 69332/01
Isolationshaft (Einzelhaft; Kontaktsperre; konkrete Begründung und …
- EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42994/05
FURDIK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10
MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08
MOSENDZ v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
PREMININY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96
E. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 60437/08
ERIKSSON v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08
REYNOLDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04
ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13
STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05
SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04
CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
MASNEVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 22893/05
RODIC ET AUTRES c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
- EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 24919/03
MATHEW v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 8610/11
S.J.P. AND E.S. v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 29100/07
MARRO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 67124/01
CICEK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07
KAÇIU AND KOTORRI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 21.05.2013 - 10404/10
RUMINSKI v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02
SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 36801/06
FEXLER v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 17185/02
FEDINA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 4860/02
LEPARSKIENE v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
SERGEY SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 14516/10
KOCEGAROVS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 13596/05
TIKHONOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11
GORELOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 43570/10
MARINKOVIC v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 2251/11
KAMALAK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 26427/06
BERG v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 42078/02
ALDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31244/06
LOVEIKA v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 36768/09
SARISSKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 29971/04
KATS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 37938/03
MURILLO ESPINOSA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 49044/12
KONOPACKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 43696/14
KALUZNA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 19696/10
GHEORGHE PREDESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 24527/08
M.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 35679/03
DREW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 39737/98
AARNIOSALO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 6107/07
NZAPALI v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 14628/08
ESKILSSON v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 24427/02
KAYANKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01
VRABEL v. SLOVAKIA