Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 24453/04

It will therefore examine the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, §§ 61 and 63, ECHR 2002-III, and Codarcea v. Romania, no. 31675/04, § 101, 2 June 2009), which reads as follows:.

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 24453/04

Even though the applicant's complaint concerns a private practitioner and not a State employee, the Court reiterates that Contracting States are under a positive obligation to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework enabling victims to establish any liability on the part of the physicians concerned and to obtain appropriate civil redress, such as an award of damages, in appropriate cases (see Codarcea, cited above, § 103; compare, with regard to positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, Colak and Tsakiridis v. Germany, nos. 77144/01 and 35493/05, § 30, 5 March 2009, and Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 24453/04

The Court notes that, by virtue of this provision and the fact that although she had been examined by a medical panel of the College of Doctors she could not obtain a copy of the findings of that examination, the applicant was denied of her right under Article 8 of the Convention to obtain, within a reasonable time, a medical expert report which could have determined whether - from a medical standpoint - there was a case of medical negligence in respect of the dental treatment carried out by Dr A.D. (see K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, § 58, ECHR 2009 (extracts)).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 24453/04

If one or more heads of damage cannot be calculated precisely or if the distinction between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proves difficult, the Court may decide to make a global assessment (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 29, ECHR 2000-IV).

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 24453/04

Even though the applicant's complaint concerns a private practitioner and not a State employee, the Court reiterates that Contracting States are under a positive obligation to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework enabling victims to establish any liability on the part of the physicians concerned and to obtain appropriate civil redress, such as an award of damages, in appropriate cases (see Codarcea, cited above, § 103; compare, with regard to positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, Colak and Tsakiridis v. Germany, nos. 77144/01 and 35493/05, § 30, 5 March 2009, and Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I).