Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  N.B. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98

  BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 29518/10

  The word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not, however, mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-I).

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE

  In cases of allegations of medical negligence the obligations under Article 3 incumbent on the authorities have been interpreted as in principle not requiring the provision of a criminal-law remedy (see V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, §§ 125-26, ECHR 2011 (extracts); N.B. v. Slovakia, no. 29518/10, § 84, 12 June 2012; I.G. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 15966/04, § 129, 13 November 2012; and Dvorácek v. Czech Republic, no. 12927/13, § 111, 6 November 2014).
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14793/08

  Transsexualität: Recht auf Geschlechtsumwandlung gestärkt

  La notion a sans doute une connotation négative et la Cour n'a pas été épargnée par de tristes affaires à ce sujet, notamment concernant des femmes d'origine rom (voir, entre autres, K.H. et autres c. Slovaquie, no 32881/04, 28 avril 2009 ; V.C. c. Slovaquie, no 18968/07, 8 novembre 2011 ; N.B. c Slovaquie, no 29518/10, 12 juin 2012 ; I.G. et autres c Slovaquie, no 15966/04, 13 novembre 2012 ; R.K. c. République Tchèque, no 7883/08, 27 novembre 2012 (règlement amiable)).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 43399/13

  Y.P. v. RUSSIA

  The Court reached that conclusion taking into account the particular circumstances of the cases concerned, including the fact that the applicants belonged to a vulnerable population group (Roma); their young age and the fact that they were at an early stage of their reproductive life; the absence of imminent medical necessity; and the serious medical and psychological after-effects of the sterilisation procedure (see V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, §§ 116-19, 8 November 2011; N.B. v. Slovakia, no. 29518/10, §§ 79-80, 12 June 2012; and I.G. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 15966/04, § 123-25, 13 November 2012).

  As the facts of the application reveal (see paragraph 54 of the judgment) no medical emergency was established in the present case and as the judgment (see paragraph 55) reiterates, by referring also to N.B. v. Slovakia (no. 29518/10, § 73, 12 June 2012), sterilisation as such, is not, in accordance with generally recognised standards, a lifesaving intervention.

 
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 32086/07

  ALTUG ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Ainsi, les États parties sont, au titre de cette obligation, tenus de prendre les mesures légales et réglementaires nécessaires pour que les médecins s'interrogent sur les conséquences prévisibles que l'intervention médicale projetée peut avoir sur l'intégrité physique de leurs patients et qu'ils en informent préalablement ceux-ci de manière à ce qu'ils soient en mesure de donner un accord éclairé (mutatis mutandis, V.C. c. Slovaquie, no 18968/07, §§ 107 à 117, CEDH 2011 (extraits), N.B. c. Slovaquie, no 29518/10, §§ 76 à 78, 12 juin 2012, Hristozov et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 47039/11 et 358/12, § 122, CEDH 2012 (extraits), Arskaya c. Ukraine, no 45076/05, § 89, 5 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  R.R. AND R.D. v. SLOVAKIA

  In that connection, they relied on the Court's decisions in Furdík v. Slovakia (no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008) and Baláz and Others v. Slovakia (no. 9210/02, 28 November 2006) and the judgments in V.C. v. Slovakia (no. 18968/07, §§ 125-9, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and N.B. v. Slovakia (no. 29518/10, §§ 84-8, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 5578/12

  S.F.K. v. RUSSIA

  It reached that conclusion taking into account the particular circumstances of the cases concerned, in particular, their young age and the fact that they were at an early stage of their reproductive life; and the serious medical and psychological after-effects of the sterilisation procedure (see V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, §§ 116-19, ECHR 2011 (extracts); N.B. v. Slovakia, no. 29518/10, §§ 79-80, 12 June 2012; and I.G. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 15966/04, §§ 123-25, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 42821/18

  M c. FRANCE

  Elle a cependant élargi son application aux interventions pratiquées en milieu hospitalier ordinaire (voir, par exemple, V.C. c. Slovaquie, précité, §§ 103 et 106-120, CEDH 2011 (extraits), N.B. c. Slovaquie, no 29518/10, §§ 73-81, 12 juin 2012, et I.G. et autres c. Slovaquie, no 15966/04, §§ 119-124, 13 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11867/09

  SOLTÉSZ v. SLOVAKIA

  In reply, referring to the Court's conclusions in the cases of V.C. v. Slovakia (no. 18968/07, § 166, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), and N.B. v. Slovakia (no. 29518/10, § 109, 12 June 2012), the Government conceded that the Constitutional Court's approach displayed a degree of formalism.
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 13606/11

  Z.K. v. SLOVAKIA

  Further information about the relevant domestic law, practice and international materials is set out in V.C. v. Slovakia, cited above, §§ 60-86; N.B. v. Slovakia, no. 29518/10, §§ 50-51, 12 June 2012; and I.G. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 15966/04, § 88, 13 November 2012.