Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=22.11.2011&Aktenzeichen=35254/07
Timestamp: 2019-06-18 04:15:36+00:00
Document Index: 228012389

Matched Legal Cases: ["l'article 2", '§ 74', '§ 116', '§ 68', '§ 87', '§ 87', '§ 71', '§ 112', '§ 91', '§ 57', '§ 96', '§ 130', '§ 74', '§ 80', '§ 89', '§ 49', '§ 17', '§ 187', '§ 99', '§ 54', '§ 146', '§ 90', '§ 93', '§ 69', '§ 71', '§ 30', '§ 115', '§ 71', '§ 87', '§ 94', '§ 78', '§ 85', '§ 93', '§ 90', '§ 146']

EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2011,55885
EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55885)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.11.2011 - 35254/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55885)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. November 2011 - 35254/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55885)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55885) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Notamment, lorsqu'il y a des raisons plausibles de croire que le décès est suspect, l'article 2 exige que les autorités déclenchent promptement et de leur propre chef une enquête officielle, indépendante, impartiale et efficace afin de vérifier les circonstances qui en sont à l'origine (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tararieva c. Russie, no 4353/03, §§ 74, 75 et 103, CEDH 2006-XV (extraits), Kats et autres c. Ukraine, no 29971/04, §§ 116 et 120, 18 décembre 2008, Gagiu c. Roumanie, no 63258/00, § 68, 24 février 2009, Makharadze et Sikharulidze c. Géorgie, no 35254/07, § 87, 22 novembre 2011, et Gülay Çetin c. Turquie, no 44084/10, § 87, 5 mars 2013).
On peut citer à titre d'exemple les principes relatifs à l'obligation faite aux Etats de protéger la vie et la santé des personnes privées de leur liberté (voir, entre autres, Powell c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 45305/99, CEDH 2000-V, Makharadze et Sikharulidze c. Géorgie, no 35254/07, §§ 71 et 73, 22 novembre 2011, Naoumenko c. Ukraine, no 42023/98, § 112, 10 février 2004, Dzieciak c. Pologne, no 77766/01, § 91, 9 décembre 2008, Huylu c. Turquie, no 52955/99, §§ 57-58, 16 novembre 2006, Taïs c. France, no 39922/03, §§ 96 et 98, 1er juin 2006, Anguelova c. Bulgarie, no 38361/97, § 130, CEDH 2002-IV, ou encore Tararieva c. Russie, no 4353/03, §§ 74, 85 et 87, CEDH 2006-XV (extraits)), obligation qui impose d'instaurer un système judiciaire efficace et indépendant qui permette d'établir la cause du décès des individus se trouvant sous la responsabilité de professionnels pénitentiaires de la santé - c'est-à-dire de soumettre les faits de la cause à un contrôle public - et, le cas échéant, d'obliger ces professionnels à répondre de leurs actes (voir, par exemple, Powell, précitée, et, mutatis mutandis, Dodov c. Bulgarie, no 59548/00, § 80, 17 janvier 2008, Vo c. France [GC], no 53924/00, § 89, CEDH 2004-VIII, et Calvelli et Ciglio, précité, § 49, avec les références qui y figurent).
In contrast to the cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings or non-enforcement of judgments, where the Court has accepted in principle that a compensatory remedy alone might suffice (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 187, ECHR 2006-V; and Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 99, ECHR 2009 (extracts)), the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3 (see also Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, §§ 54-55, 22 November 2011).
The Court has already condemned delays in recommending and performing such a test in the initial stages of the diagnostic process (see Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, § 146, 11 December 2014; Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 90, 22 November 2011; and Gladkiy, cited above, § 93).
Rather, the compatibility of a detainee's state of health with his or her continued detention, even if he or she is seriously ill, is contingent on the State's ability to provide relevant treatment of the requisite quality in prison (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011, and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, §§ 71-73, 22 November 2011, with further references).
That is the case, for instance, where a person dies in custody in suspicious circumstances (even where the apparent cause of death is a medical condition), which, as a rule, raises the question of whether the State has complied with its positive obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 30 and 34, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Kats and Others, cited above, § 115; Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 71, 3 February 2011; and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 87, 22 November 2011).
Having regard to the findings relating to Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraphs 153-156 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there have also been violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 94, 22 November 2011; Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, § 78, 2 July 2013; and Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, § 85, 18 June 2015).
In assessing the adequacy of medical treatment of detainees for tuberculosis, the Court has attached particular weight to early drug susceptibility testing and has condemned delays in recommending and performing such a test in the initial stages of the diagnostic process (see Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 93, 21 December 2010, Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 90, 22 November 2011, and Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, § 146, 11 December 2014).
EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 26562/07
TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 26.05.2015 - 75468/10
OLSOY v. TURKEY
EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 9342/16
EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 64987/14
TEDLIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 25776/05
EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 43174/08
MTCHEDLISHVILI v. GEORGIA
EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 60909/08
CHKOTUA AND ARKANIA v. GEORGIA
EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 47590/06
RUDEVITS v. LATVIA