Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VILNES AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VILNES AND OTHERS v. NORWAY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman punishment;Positive obligations) ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vilnes and Others v. Norway

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Vilnes and Others v. Norway

  [18.09.2012]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09, 22703/10
• EGMR, 27.05.2015 - 52806/09

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

  BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  As regards the plaintiffs" complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, the Supreme Court observed that this provision was applicable not only in the event of loss of life but also when in the circumstances there was a threat to physical integrity (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 146, ECHR 2008(extracts)).

  In Öneryıldız v. Turkey ([GC], no. 48939/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XII), Budayeva and Others v. Russia (nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, ECHR 2008), and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, §§ 157-161, 28 February 2012), the issue of access to information arose in a different context.

• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  The Supreme Court noted that Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 32555/96, §§ 155-169, ECHR 2005-X) was the only judgment cited by the parties that had concerned possible damage to health sustained in connection with professional activities.

  In Roche v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005-X), the applicant had been denied access to information relating to his participation during military service in the testing of nerve gas and mustard gas on military personnel.

• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  Article 2 was inapplicable since, as the Court held in Makaratzis v. Greece ([GC], no. 50385/99, § 50, ECHR 2004-XI), "it [was] only in exceptional circumstances that physical ill-treatment... which [did] not result in death [might] disclose a violation of Article 2 of the Convention." In the present case, the Government stressed, the applicants were alive; the fact that other divers operating in the North Sea in the same period as the applicants had died from a variety of causes should not influence the Court's assessment of whether the applicants" rights under Article 2 had been breached.

  In a number of judgments the term "real and immediate risk" is used when considering the scope of the State's obligations under Article 2 in different circumstances (see, among other authorities, Osman v. United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116 in fine; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 68, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XI).

 
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 17423/05

  KOLYADENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, §§ 157-161, 28 February 2012:.

  In Öneryıldız v. Turkey ([GC], no. 48939/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XII), Budayeva and Others v. Russia (nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, ECHR 2008), and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, §§ 157-161, 28 February 2012), the issue of access to information arose in a different context.

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  Moreover, in view of the reasoning and outcome of the proceedings pursued by them and which ended in the Supreme Court's judgment of 8 October 2009 (see paragraphs 143 to 159 above), the Court accepts that there were special circumstances which absolved the third to seventh applicants from their normal obligation to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to their complaints under the same provisions (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV, and Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, §§ 36 to 40, Series A no. 40).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  As regards the plaintiffs" complaint of violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Supreme Court took note of their argument based on the European Court's case-law in relation to search and seizure of documents on professional premises, notably Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  Regard was had to the Court's case-law (in particular López Ostra v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, ECHR 2005-IV; and Ledyayeva and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  In a number of judgments the term "real and immediate risk" is used when considering the scope of the State's obligations under Article 2 in different circumstances (see, among other authorities, Osman v. United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116 in fine; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 68, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 59909/00

  GIACOMELLI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  On this point the Supreme Court quoted the following passage from Giacomelli v. Italy, no. 59909/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-XII:.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 52806/09

  Whilst any "suffering or humiliation involved must... go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI), the applicants had engaged in diving activities voluntarily and their employment ought to be regarded as "legitimate" for the purposes of the Court's assessment.
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE