Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=27.01.2009&Aktenzeichen=1704/06
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 22:33:50
Document Index: 320480458

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 98', '§ 98', '§ 71', '§ 43', '§ 63', '§ 71', '§ 41', '§ 79', '§ 57', '§ 43', '§ 63', '§ 84', '§ 97', '§ 107', '§ 92', '§ 57', '§ 43', '§ 63', '§ 84', '§ 97', '§ 107', '§ 92']

EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2009,58273
EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,58273)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.01.2009 - 1704/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,58273)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Januar 2009 - 1704/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,58273)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,58273) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1-c No violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...
EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 1704/06
Sur la base de ces éléments, le Gouvernement considère que la présente espèce n'est pas comparable aux affaires où le recours à une cage de métal dans un prétoire a conduit la Cour à conclure à la violation de l'article 3 (il cite les affaires Sarban c. Moldova, no 3456/05, 4 octobre 2005, Ramichvili et Kokhreidzé c. Géorgie, no 1704/06, 27 janvier 2009, Ashot Haroutyounian, précité, Khodorkovskiy c. Russie, no 5829/04, 31 mai 2011, et Piruzyan c. Arménie, no 33376/07, 26 juin 2012).
Lastly, in the recent case of Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, (no. 1704/06, §§ 98 et seq., 27 January 2009) the Court, in a very similar factual context, decided as follows:.
Thus, a violation of Article 3 was found in a case where the applicants, publicly known figures, were placed during a hearing on their detention, which was broadcast live throughout the country, in a barred dock resembling a metal cage and were guarded by special forces wearing black hood-like masks, despite the fact that there was no risk that the applicants might abscond or resort to violence during their transfer to the courthouse or at the hearings (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 98-102, 27 January 2009).
It is the Court's well-established case-law that a separate complaint with the aim of holding State agents in charge of detained applicants criminally liable for alleged acts of ill-treatment is, in the normal course of events, an effective remedy (see, among many others, Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 1704/06, 26 June 2007; Davtian v. Georgia (dec.), no. 73241/01, 6 September 2005; Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 49790/99, 14 October 2003).
In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists a well-established case-law, including against Georgia, on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning poor conditions of detention (see Aliev v. Georgia, no. 522/04, §§ 71-84, 13 January 2009; Gorgiladze v. Georgia, no. 4313/04, §§ 41-51, 20 October 2009; and Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 79-88 and 91-93, 27 January 2009).
In this connection, it reiterates that there already exists an abundance of well-established case-law, including against Georgia, concerning lack of adequate medical treatment in prison and lack of effective remedies in this regard (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61, 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).