Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=46857/06
Timestamp: 2019-06-16 03:43:14
Document Index: 41074243

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 30', '§ 27', '§ 94', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 112', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 24', '§ 67', '§ 26', '§ 24', '§ 67', '§ 26']

EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 46857/06 - dejure.org
EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 46857/06
https://dejure.org/2010,62674
EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 46857/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62674)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.05.2010 - 46857/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62674)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Mai 2010 - 46857/06 (https://dejure.org/2010,62674)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,62674) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 45705/07
The Court has already held that detaining persons suffering from a serious physical disability in conditions inappropriate to their state of health, or leaving such persons in the hands of their cellmates for help with relieving themselves, bathing and getting dressed or undressed, amounted to degrading treatment (see Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 30, ECHR 2001-VII; Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, §§ 27-30, 20 May 2010; and Vincent v. France, no. 6253/03, §§ 94-103, 24 October 2006).
The Court finds particularly regrettable the practice of leaving the applicant unfastened in a moving vehicle, even if his wheelchair was immobilised, as happened on 28 August 2006 (see Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 28, 20 May 2010).
It noted, however, that the lack of a seat belt or handles might give rise to an issue under Article 3 under certain circumstances and in combination with other factors (see Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 28, 20 May 2010, where the applicant was a paraplegic and his wheelchair had been left unsecured in a moving vehicle, and Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 112-17, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts), where a post-operative patient had been transported on a stretcher in an unadapted prison van).
Similarly, the Court has found that leaving a person with a serious physical disability to rely on his cellmates for assistance with using the toilet, bathing and getting dressed or undressed contributes to its finding that the conditions of detention amount to degrading treatment (see Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, §§ 27 and 30, 20 May 2010).
Similarly, the Court has found that leaving a person with a serious physical disability to rely on his cellmates for assistance with using the toilet, bathing and getting dressed or undressed, contributed to its finding that the conditions of detention amounted to degrading treatment (see Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, §§ 27 and 30, 20 May 2010).
Similarly, the Court has found that leaving a person with a serious physical disability to rely on his cellmates for assistance with using the toilet, bathing and getting dressed or undressed, contributed to its finding that the conditions of detention had amounted to degrading treatment (see Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, §§ 27 and 30, 20 May 2010).
Similarly, the Court has found that leaving a person with a serious physical disability to rely on his cellmates for assistance with using the toilet, bathing and getting dressed or undressed contributed to its finding that the conditions of detention amounted to degrading treatment (see Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, §§ 27 and 30, 20 May 2010).
In considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see among many other authorities Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 26, 20 May 2010).
In considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Engel v. Hungary, no. 46857/06, § 26, 20 May 2010).