Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=04.10.2016&Aktenzeichen=54436/14
Timestamp: 2019-05-23 08:08:53
Document Index: 504267263

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 56', '§ 57', '§ 64', '§ 50', '§ 37', '§ 48', '§ 46', '§ 38', '§ 53', '§ 72', '§ 41', '§ 60']

EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14, 66252/14 - dejure.org
EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14, 66252/14
https://dejure.org/2016,31332
EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14, 66252/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,31332)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.10.2016 - 54436/14, 66252/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,31332)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Januar 2016 - 54436/14, 66252/14 (https://dejure.org/2016,31332)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,31332) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)
Given the seriousness of his condition, in particular the diagnosis of recurrent tumour eight months after his arrest, and the risks and suffering attached to it, the Court concludes that the applicant did not receive adequate medical assistance at the relevant period of time (see Konovalchuk v. Ukraine, no. 31928/15, §§ 56-62 13 October 2016; see also, Yermolenko v. Ukraine, no. 49218/10, § 57, 15 November 2012; Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, § 64, 4 October 2016; and Piskunov v. Russia, no. 3933/12, § 50, 4 October 2016).
Moreover, like in many similar cases (see Maylenskiy v. Russia, no. 12646/15, §§ 37-39, 4 October 2016; Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, §§ 48-49, 4 October 2016; Kondrulin v. Russia, no. 12987/15, §§ 46-47, 20 September 2016; Andrey Lavrov v. Russia, no. 66252/14, §§ 38-39, 1 March 2016; Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, §§ 53-54, 23 July 2015; and Amirov cited above, §§ 72-73, 27 November 2014) the Government's submissions did not contain an analysis of the adequacy of the applicant's medical care and the compatibility of the conditions of his detention with his state of health.
The relevant general principles have been summarised in Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, §§ 41-44, 4 October 2016.
That standard should be "compatible with the human dignity" of a detainee, but should also take into account "the practical demands of imprisonment" (see Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, §§ 60-61, 4 October 2016 and the authorities cited therein).