Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AVILKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AVILKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Avilkina and Others v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  Referring to the Court's case-law (Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-V; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 48, Series A no. 116; and I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, § 35, 17 July 2008), the second and fourth applicants submitted that the information requested by the prosecutor's office was confidential medical information and fell within the ambit of the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention.

  For domestic law to meet these requirements, it must afford adequate legal protection against arbitrariness and accordingly indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; and Amann cited above, § 56).

• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  However, this margin goes hand in hand with European supervision (see Funke v. France, judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A, p. 24, § 55) and the scope of this margin depends on such factors as the nature and seriousness of the interests at stake and the gravity of the interference (see Z, cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 61827/00

  GLASS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  The Court further observes that the medical institutions where the second and fourth applicants underwent treatment were public hospitals for whose acts the State is responsible for the purposes of the Convention (see Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 71, ECHR 2004-II).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, § 67).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  The Court observes that the interpretation of the phrase "in accordance with the law" is well developed in the Court's case-law and has been summarised as follows (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 95-99, ECHR 2008):.
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  Referring to the Court's case-law (Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-V; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 48, Series A no. 116; and I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, § 35, 17 July 2008), the second and fourth applicants submitted that the information requested by the prosecutor's office was confidential medical information and fell within the ambit of the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  For domestic law to meet these requirements, it must afford adequate legal protection against arbitrariness and accordingly indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; and Amann cited above, § 56).
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02

  CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  To the extent that it is relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the interference it will be addressed in paragraphs 43-54 below (see, mutatis mutandis, Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, § 53, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 20511/03

  I v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  Referring to the Court's case-law (Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-V; Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 48, Series A no. 116; and I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, § 35, 17 July 2008), the second and fourth applicants submitted that the information requested by the prosecutor's office was confidential medical information and fell within the ambit of the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 44647/98

  PECK c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 1585/09

  In determining whether the impugned measures were "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will consider whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify them were relevant and sufficient and the measures were proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued (see, for example, Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, § 76, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

• EGMR, 08.09.2022 - 3153/16

  DRELON c. FRANCE

  La Cour prend également en compte le fait que le consentement de la personne n'ait pas été obtenu ou recherché lors de la collecte, de la conservation ou de l'utilisation de données intrinsèquement privées (ibidem, § 104, et Avilkina et autres c. Russie, no 1585/09, §§ 48-49, 6 juin 2013).
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3866/20

  L.F. c. FRANCE

  La Cour prend également en compte le fait que le consentement de la personne n'ait pas été obtenu ou recherché lors de la collecte, de la conservation ou de l'utilisation de données intrinsèquement privées (ibidem, § 104, et Avilkina et autres c. Russie, no 1585/09, §§ 48-49, 6 juin 2013).
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13

  M.K. v. UKRAINE

  The Court's assessment Admissibility 30. The Court observes at the outset that it has not been contested by the Government that the hospital was a public institution and that the acts and omissions of its administration and medical staff were capable of engaging the responsibility of the respondent State under the Convention (see Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 71, ECHR 2004-II; I. v. Finland, cited above, § 35; and Avilkina and Others v. Russia, no. 1585/09, § 31, 6 June 2013).

 
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 5578/12

  S.F.K. v. RUSSIA

  These findings are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the respondent State bears the direct responsibility under Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment to which the applicant was subjected (see paragraphs 65-68 above) as long as it involved the relevant medical personnel of the Tuymazy Central Hospital (see, among other authorities, Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 71, ECHR 2004-II; Avilkina and Others v. Russia, no. 1585/09, § 31, 6 June 2013; Petrova v. Latvia, no. 4605/05, § 88, 24 June 2014; and Elberte v. Latvia, no. 61243/08, § 106, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 79783/13

  J.M. AND A.T. v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The Court's assessment 41. The general principles applicable to the instant case are summarised in the case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 67-77, ECHR 2008), and more recently reiterated in the case of Avilkina and Others v. Russia (no. 1585/09, §§ 43-46, 6 June 2013).
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 35722/15

  SIDOROVA v. RUSSIA

  To the extent that it is relevant to the assessment of the proportionality of the interference, this matter will be addressed in paragraphs 29-36 below (compare Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, no. 28793/02, §§ 42-54, ECHR 2006-II, and Avilkina and Others v. Russia, no. 1585/09, § 40, 6 June 2013).