Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THÖRN v. SWEDEN

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  THÖRN v. SWEDEN

  Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

  Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 24547/18

  The Court reiterates that matters of healthcare policy are in principle within the margin of appreciation of the domestic authorities, who are best placed to assess priorities, use of resources and social needs (see, among other authorities, Vavricka and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, § 274, 8 April 2021; and Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, § 119, ECHR 2012 (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 09.07.2021 - 6697/18

  Familiennachzug bei subsidiärem Schutz: Kompromiss zwischen Menschenrechten und …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 24547/18

  Through their democratic legitimation, the national authorities are, as the Court has held on many occasions, in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions (see, inter alia, M.A. v. Denmark [GC], no. 6697/18, § 147, 9 July 2021; see also Protocol No. 15, which entered into force on 1 August 2021).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 302/02

  JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 24547/18

  However, the case did not concern the freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, which is vital to the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy (see Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 139, 10 June 2010), but unlicenced production and use of narcotics.

 
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 41723/06

  Gillberg ./. Schweden

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 24547/18

  Although the instant case concerns the imposition of a fine (see for example, mutatis mutandis, Gillberg v. Sweden [GC], no. 41723/06, §§ 64-74, 3 April 2012), the Court has in this context regard to its case-law in cases concerning the inability of patients to access certain medical treatments which it has examined under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Durisotto and Hristozov and Others, both cited above).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 14065/15

  LACATUS c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 24547/18

  No information has been provided to the Court to indicate that the applicant lacked the means to pay the fine that was ultimately imposed on him or that paying it would for other reasons be particularly burdensome to him (contrast, for example, Lacatus v. Switzerland, no. 14065/15, §§ 107-10, 19 January 2021).
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 58502/11

  ABDYUSHEVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 24547/18

  The Court has also held that where there is no consensus within the member States of the Council of Europe, either as to the relative importance of the interest at stake or as to the best means of protecting it, particularly where the case raises sensitive moral or ethical issues, the margin will be wider (see, for instance, Abdyusheva and Others v. Russia, nos. 58502/11 and 2 others, §§ 111-12, 26 November 2019, and the references therein).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 62804/13

  DURISOTTO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 24547/18

  The Court has however examined applications regarding refusals to access specific treatments or medicines from the angle of "private life" under Article 8 of the Convention, the interpretation of which covers notions of personal autonomy and quality of life (see, inter alia, Abdyusheva and Others, cited above, § 111; Hristozov and Others, cited above; and Durisotto v. Italy (dec.), no. 62804/13, 28 May 2014).