CtEDO 21.01.2020 RO

Judgment Strazimiri v. Albania - lack of a special medical institution for the mentally ill who are deprived of their liberty on the basis of court-ordered compulsory treatment

HOTĂRÂRE
21.01.2020
RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2020
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro
Citează această cauză
Judgment Strazimiri v. Albania - lack of a special medical institution for the mentally ill who are deprived of their liberty on the basis of court-ordered compulsory treatment (CtEDO, 2020)

Textul complet nu este disponibil. Consultați sursa originală.

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze
CtEDO 2016-10-05
0,91
STRAZIMIRI v. ALBANIA
Communicated on 5 October 2016 FIRST SECTION Application no. 34602/16 Arben STRAZIMIRI against Albania lodged on 11 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the inadequacy of the medical treatment of the applicant, who
CtEDO 2020-01-21
0,91
CASE OF STRAZIMIRI v. ALBANIA - [Albanian Translation] by the General State Advocature of Albania
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Person
CtEDO 2020-01-21
0,90
CASE OF STRAZIMIRI v. ALBANIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Person
CtEDO 2024-02-06
0,89
CASE OF T.A. v. ARMENIA
, no justification was provided for such a need of compulsory confinement. It appears that the fact that the applicant was mentally ill was considered in itself sufficient to justify her compulsory placement and treatment in a psychiatric i
CtEDO 2022-07-04
0,88
E.G. v. ITALY
v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 137-138, 23 March 2016? (b) did the applicant receive adequate psychiatric and psychological treatment during his detention in juvenile prison ( Blokhin, cited above; Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§
Sursă