Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WATTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 53586/09

  It should be recalled that national authorities have direct democratic legitimation and are, as the Court has held on many occasions, in principle better placed than an international court to evaluate local needs and conditions (see, for example, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 53586/09

  Positive obligations require States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to treatment reaching the threshold of Article 3 (see A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-VI; and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 53586/09

  The positive obligation incumbent on States under Article 2 requires that they take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports 1998-III; and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  SHELLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 53586/09

  Of further relevance in conducting the balancing act required by Article 8 § 2 is the wide margin of appreciation afforded to States in issues of general policy, including social, economic and health-care policies (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008); and Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 97, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 53586/09

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 55; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 4241/12

  McDONALD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  As such, a more appropriate comparator would be the case of Watts v. The United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53586/09 of 4 May 2010, in which the Court was content to proceed on the basis that a decision to close the care home where the elderly applicant was resident and to transfer her to another home constituted an interference with her rights under Article 8.