Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHELLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  Nor is it without relevance in this context that the risk of infection primarily flows from conduct by the prisoners themselves which they know, or should know, is dangerous to their own health, a situation that can be contrasted with damage to health flowing from conditions for which the authorities themselves are directly responsible (e.g. Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI) and are under an obligation to bring up to the appropriate standards.
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  However while there are, inevitably, clear differences between those who are deprived of their liberty in conformity with Article 5 of the Convention and those who are not, the Court recalls that prisoners do not forfeit the protection of the other fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 69, ECHR 2005-....; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, §§ 67-68, 4 December 2007), although the manner and extent to which they may enjoy those other rights will inevitably be influenced by the context.
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  To date the Court's case-law has been limited to holding that the acts and omissions of the authorities in the field of health care policy may in certain circumstances engage their responsibility under the positive limb of Article 2. This has so far imposed systemic and structural obligations, such as to make regulations compelling hospitals, whether public or private, to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients" lives, and to provide for an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, can be determined and those responsible made accountable (Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 104, 27 June 2006; Silih v. Slovenia, no. 71463/01, § 117, 28 June 2007).

 
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 46117/99

  Taskin u.a. ./. Türkei - Umgehung einer rechtskräftigen Entscheidung der Justiz …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  Nor is he being denied any information or assistance concerning a threat to his health for which the authorities are directly or indirectly responsible (see environmental cases where individuals can claim access to information, or protection, where they are affected by dangerous industrial or mining operations licensed or condoned by the authorities e.g. Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, Taskın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, ECHR 2004-X, Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  As regards the Government's submission that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies as he had not invoked Article 14 in the judicial review proceedings, the Court would recall the principles of flexibility and avoidance of undue formalism developed in its case-law on Article 35, in particular that it is sufficient if the applicant has raised the substance of his Convention complaint before the domestic authorities (see e.g. Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, § 34).
• EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

  AZINAS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  The facts relied on in his application had been presented to the courts who had had the opportunity to address the substance of his complaints, relying on Azinas v. Cyprus ([GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  Noting first that the applicant's complaint falls, in the wide sense, within the ambit of Article 8 of the Convention (e.g. Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 42, ECHR 2006-...) and that Article 14 is therefore engaged, the Court has considered the Government's argument that the applicant cannot claim, as a prisoner, to be in a comparable position to those in the community.
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95

  CAMP ET BOURIMI c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

  Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, § 37, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07

  CLIFT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  He further pointed out that being a prisoner has previously been found by the Court to constitute "status" (see Shelley v. the United Kingdom, no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008) and argued that the correct test for deciding whether Article 14 applied was whether there was a distinct legal situation which was inextricably bound up with the individual's personal circumstances and existence.
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 44873/09

  OGNEVENKO v. RUSSIA

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52 with further references, ECHR 2006-VI; Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06; 4 January 2008; and Hristozov, cited above, § 119).".
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  Thus, the Court cannot speculate as to whether his condition in such case would be of a life-threatening nature which would therefore attract the applicability of Article 2 (compare Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008, concerning a complaint about the authorities' decision not to implement a needle-exchange programme for drug users in prisons to help prevent the spread of viruses, where the Court stressed that irrespective of the higher levels of infection of HIV and HCV within prison populations, it was not satisfied that the general unspecified risk, or fear, of infection as a prisoner was sufficiently severe as to raise issues under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention).

 
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10

  VASILEVA v. BULGARIA

  In view of the broad margin of appreciation enjoyed by the High Contracting Parties in laying down their health care-policy (see Pentiacova and Others, cited above; Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008; and Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 70474/11

  KIRIL ZLATKOV NIKOLOV c. FRANCE

  Il ajoute que la Cour a jugé dans cette affaire (arrêt, §§ 61-63) et dans les affaires Engel et autres c. Pays-Bas (8 juin 1976, § 72, série A no 22) et Schelley c. Royame-Uni (déc.) (no 23800/06, 4 janvier 2008), qu'il en va ainsi de la qualité de condamné purgeant une peine à temps de quinze ans ou plus par opposition à celle de condamné purgeant une peine perpétuelle, du grade et du statut de détenu.
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 31827/02

  LADUNA v. SLOVAKIA

  La Cour est donc convaincue, et les parties ne le contestent pas, que la détention provisoire du requérant relève de la notion d"« autre situation'au sens de l'article 14 de la Convention (voir, mutadis mutandis, Shelley c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 23800/06, 4 janvier 2008, et Clift c. Royaume-Uni, no 7205/07, §§ 55-63, 13 juillet 2010).
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 4241/12

  McDONALD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In conducting the balancing act required by Article 8 § 2 the Court has to have regard to 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, 21.04.2015 - 40356/10

  S.S. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Nor did they disagree that, in view of the relevant case-law, the status of prisoner is covered by the term "other status" in Article 14 (Shelley v. the United Kingdom, no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008; Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, §§ 55-63, 13 July 2010; Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 90, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 18568/12

  POJATINA v. CROATIA

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52 with further references, ECHR 2006-VI; Shelley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23800/06, 4 January 2008; and Hristozov, cited above, § 119).".
• EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 53586/09

  WATTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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).