Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Z.K. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 12, Art. 14, Art. 14+12, Art. 14+3, Art. 14+8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Z.K. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 12, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 13606/11

  The Court has considered allegations of ill-treatment to be susceptible of raising an issue under Article 3, subject to their being supported by appropriate evidence (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 18968/07

  V.C. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 13606/11

  She also referred to a number of reports and statements by human rights organisations, both in Slovakia and abroad, including governmental and inter-governmental bodies, asking the Slovakian authorities to conduct an impartial and fair investigation of the allegations of forced and coerced sterilisation of Roma women in Slovakia, or criticising the absence of such an investigation (for further details see also V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, §§ 43-47, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 15966/04

  I.G. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 13606/11

  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.

 
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 11682/03

  IGARS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 13606/11

  Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds (i) that the applicant has failed to lay the basis of a prima facie case of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention on the part of hospital staff of the respondent State, and (ii) no indication that when dealing with the case the domestic authorities disrespected any procedural obligation which may have arisen in their respect in the circumstances (see also, mutatis mutandis, (Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 72, 5 February 2013; Svoboda v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43442/11, § 60, 4 February 2014 and, as regards the procedural obligations of Contracting Parties in the specific sphere of medical negligence, V.C., cited above, §§ 123-125, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 43442/11

  SVOBODA ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 13606/11

  Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds (i) that the applicant has failed to lay the basis of a prima facie case of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention on the part of hospital staff of the respondent State, and (ii) no indication that when dealing with the case the domestic authorities disrespected any procedural obligation which may have arisen in their respect in the circumstances (see also, mutatis mutandis, (Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 72, 5 February 2013; Svoboda v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43442/11, § 60, 4 February 2014 and, as regards the procedural obligations of Contracting Parties in the specific sphere of medical negligence, V.C., cited above, §§ 123-125, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 29518/10

  N.B. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 13606/11

  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.