Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=44599/98
Timestamp: 2019-08-20 06:21:55
Document Index: 586226052

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 3']

Rechtsprechung: 44599/98 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 25.01.2000
https://dejure.org/2001,7782
EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98 (https://dejure.org/2001,7782)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.02.2001 - 44599/98 (https://dejure.org/2001,7782)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Februar 2001 - 44599/98 (https://dejure.org/2001,7782)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,7782) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 44599/98
NVwZ 2002, 453
The suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, physical or mental, may be covered by Article 3, where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by treatment, whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion or other measures, for which the authorities can be held responsible (see the above mentioned D. v. the United Kingdom and Keenan v. the United Kingdom judgments and also Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, (Sect. 3), ECHR 2000-I).
EGMR, Urteil vom 28.06.2011 - 8319/07 und 11449/07 - (Sufi und Elmi/Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2012, 681; Entscheidung vom 22.09.2009 - 30471/08 - (Abdolkhani und Karimnia/Türkei), InfAuslR 2010, 47; Urteil vom 17.07.2008 - 25904/07 - (NA./Vereinigtes Königreich), juris; Urteil vom 28.02.2008 - 37201/06 - (Saadi/Italien), NVwZ 2008, 1330 Rn. 140; vom 27.05.2008 - 26565/05 - (N./Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2008, 1334 sowie Urteil vom 06.02.2001 - 44599/98 - (Bensaid/Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2002, 453.
EGMR, Urteil vom 28.06.2011 - 8319/07 und 11449/07 - (Sufi und Elmi/Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2012, 681; Entscheidung vom 22.09.2009 - 30471/08 - (Abdolkhani und Karimnia/Türkei), InfAuslR 2010, 47; Urteil vom 17.07.2008 - 25904/07 - (NA./Vereinigtes Königreich), juris; Urteil vom 28.02.2008 - 37201/06 - (Saadi/Italien), NVwZ 2008, 1330; vom 27.05.2008 - 26565/05 - (N./Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2008, 1334 sowie Urteil vom 06.02.2001 - 44599/98 - (Bensaid/Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2002, 453.
EGMR, Urteil vom 6. Februar 2001 - Nr. 44599/98 - Fall Bensaid, NVwZ 2002, 453 (454) Nr. 39.
Taking into account the applicant's present state of health, her removal to Zambia would not amount to treatment proscribed by Article 3.38. The following year the Court delivered judgment in Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I. The applicant, an Algerian national, was a schizophrenic who had been treated for this illness for some years in the United Kingdom.
The suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, physical or mental, may be covered by Article 3, where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by treatment, whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion or other measures, for which the authorities can be held responsible (see D. v. the United Kingdom and Keenan, both cited above, and Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2000-I)." (emphasis added) This principle should therefore equally apply where the harm stems from a naturally occurring illness and a lack of adequate resources to deal with it in the receiving country, if the minimum level of severity, in the given circumstances, is attained.
..." 2 See B.B. v. France, judgment of 7 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998: illness had not yet reached an advanced stage; S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no 46553/99, 15 February 2000: same type of AIDS treatment as in Sweden was available in Zambia, although at a considerable cost, but the applicant's children and family members lived there; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I: medical treatment available in Algeria, not receiving support or care to a large extent speculative; Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and he had a prospect of medical care and family support in his country of origin; Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and adequate treatment was to be found in Tanzania, albeit at considerable cost and with limited availability in the rural area from whence the applicant came, and he maintained some links with relatives who might be able to help him; Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004: applicant had not reached the stage of full-blown AIDS and was not suffering from any HIV- related illnesses and adequate treatment was in principle available in Togo albeit at a possibly considerable cost.
See Ellie Palmer, Judicial Review, Socio-Economic Rights and the Human Rights Act, (Oxford: Hart Publishing), 2007, at p. 270.2 In Bensaid v. the United Kingdom (Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I), a case concerning deportation of a schizophrenic to a country where adequate medical treatment was allegedly not available, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention: "47. "Private life' is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition.
Der Senat ist sich dabei auch des Umstandes bewusst, dass an sich Art. 3 EMRK nach der Spruchpraxis des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte kein Verbleiberecht gewährt, um eine medizinisch notwendige Behandlung durchführen lassen zu können, auch wenn die Betroffenen an einer schweren Krankheit leiden (vgl. etwa EGMR, Urteil vom 06.02.2001 - 44599/98).
Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) wies die Beschwerden …
EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 2964/12
EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 16458/12
N. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 17299/12
EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 15966/04
EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 29518/10
N.B. v. SLOVAKIA
EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 1383/04
OVDIENKO IRYNA AND IVAN v. FINLAND
EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 17416/05
EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 40290/98
KACMAR v. SLOVAKIA
EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 16988/02
BOHUCKY v. SLOVAKIA
EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 9210/02
BALAZ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
EGMR, 16.05.2006 - 9886/05
EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 35989/03
RAMADAN & AHJREDINI v. THE NETHERLANDS
EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 76749/01
MEHO and OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
https://dejure.org/2000,27294
EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 44599/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,27294)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.01.2000 - 44599/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,27294)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Januar 2000 - 44599/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,27294)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,27294) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.