Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=29.10.2013&Aktenzeichen=11160/07
Timestamp: 2019-06-25 00:56:10
Document Index: 401639406

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 91', '§ 85', '§ 91', '§ 83', '§ 49', '§ 88', '§ 51', '§ 77', '§ 83', '§ 87', '§ 83', '§ 75', '§ 40', '§ 24', '§ 189', '§ 86', '§ 69', '§ 91', '§ 68', '§ 34', '§ 35', '§ 81', '§ 48', '§ 90', '§ 57', '§ 72', '§ 40', '§ 24']

EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2013,28986
EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,28986)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.10.2013 - 11160/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,28986)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. Januar 2013 - 11160/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,28986)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,28986) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
D. F. v. Latvia
Thus, to threaten an individual with torture may constitute at least inhuman treatment (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 91 and, mutatis mutandis, D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 85, 29 October 2013).
La Cour rappelle avoir déjà eu l'occasion de souligner que les détenus sont en situation de vulnérabilité et que les autorités ont le devoir de les protéger (Keenan c. Royaume-Uni, no 27229/95, § 91, CEDH 2001-III, D.F. c. Lettonie, no 11160/07, § 83, 29 octobre 2013, et Enache c. Roumanie, no 10662/06, § 49, 1er avril 2014 et, plus récemment, M.C. c. Pologne, no 23692/09, § 88, 3 mars 2015).
In addition, it does not appear from the case file that these seven applicants complained to the relevant authorities alleging treatment contrary to the relevant Articles of the Convention (see, for example, D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 51, 29 October 2013).
It is well-settled that the authorities have an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1, to protect detainees from inhuman and degrading treatment by other detainees (see, among other authorities, Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, §§ 77-78, 20 October 2011; D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, §§ 83-84, 29 October 2013; and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, §§ 87-88, 3 March 2015).
EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 23893/06
J. L. CONTRE LA LETTONIE ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE
11160/07.
EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 1870/05
IRINA SMIRNOVA v. UKRAINE
This requirement extends to ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see, among other authorities, D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 83, 29 October 2013 and Valiuliene v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 75, 26 March 2013).
It provides, among other things, for the right to challenge administrative acts and actions of public authorities before the administrative courts (see D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 40, 29 October 2013, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 24, 28 February 2012).
In any event, while it is clear that the authorities have an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect a detainee from inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by other detainees, especially if they have reason to believe that the detainee is particularly vulnerable - for instance because he or she is suffering from a psychological disorder (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, §§ 189-92, 3 June 2003), is of young age (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 86, 10 February 2011), or belongs to a category that is at heightened risk (see Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-70, 27 May 2008 (Serbs convicted of war crimes against Bosniacs and kept, unsegregated, in a prison where about ninety per cent of inmates were Bosniacs); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011 (homosexuals); J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012 (police collaborators); Aleksejeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012 (relatives of prison guards); Starovoitovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 27343/05, §§ 35-38, 27 November 2012 (private security guards); D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 81, 29 October 2013 (sexual offenders); Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014 (police officers); and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015 (persons accused of sexually abusing minors)) - or to believe that the other detainees have an increased propensity to violence (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 57-60, ECHR 2002-II, and Oshurko v. Ukraine, no. 33108/05, § 72, 8 September 2011), there is no evidence - and the applicant has not elaborated on that point either - that in her case the hospital staff knew or ought to have known that she stood a real risk of being assaulted by the other patient in the shower.
EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12
SIMANOVICS v. LATVIA
It provides, among other things, for the right to challenge the actions of public authorities (faktiska riciba) before the administrative courts (see D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 40, 29 October 2013, and Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 24, 28 February 2012).