Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KARPISIEWICZ v. POLAND
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 25124/09
TRZEPALKO v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09
The Government pointed to the decision of Trzepalko v. Poland (no. 25124/09, 13 September 2011) where the Court found that a civil action in negligence against the hospital and/or the doctors was the most suitable avenue for seeking to establish whether the applicant's daughter death had been attributable to shortcomings in her medical care.The Court recalls 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. However, where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals and the protection of the lives of patients - which was not contested in the present case - it cannot accept that matters such as error of judgment on the part of a health professional or negligent co-ordination among health professionals in the treatment of a particular patient, assuming such to have been established, are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account from the standpoint of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 104, 27 June 2006; Trzepalko v. Poland (dec.), no. 25124/09, 13 September 2011).
- EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09
He maintained that in the case of mentally ill persons regard had to be had to their particular vulnerability (cf. Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 66, Reports 1998-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; and Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, § 63, 11 July 2006).Thus, there is no indication that the hospital personnel knew or ought to have known that the applicant's brother posed a real and immediate risk of suicide (compare and contrast, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 93, ECHR 2001-III, which concerned the suicide of a prisoner suffering from mental illness).
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03
RIVIERE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09
He maintained that in the case of mentally ill persons regard had to be had to their particular vulnerability (cf. Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 66, Reports 1998-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; and Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, § 63, 11 July 2006).
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99
POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09
The Court recalls 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. However, where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals and the protection of the lives of patients - which was not contested in the present case - it cannot accept that matters such as error of judgment on the part of a health professional or negligent co-ordination among health professionals in the treatment of a particular patient, assuming such to have been established, are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account from the standpoint of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 104, 27 June 2006; Trzepalko v. Poland (dec.), no. 25124/09, 13 September 2011). - EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09
In this connection it recalls that the procedural obligation of Article 2 requires the States to set up an effective independent judicial system 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 (see, among other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII; Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 192, 9 April 2009). - EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09
The Court reiterates that this procedural obligation is not an obligation of result but of means only (Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II). - EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96
CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 14730/09
In this connection it recalls that the procedural obligation of Article 2 requires the States to set up an effective independent judicial system 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 (see, among other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII; Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 192, 9 April 2009).
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 40448/06
AYDOGDU c. TURQUIE
La pertinence des compétences d'un expert par rapport aux spécificités de la question scientifique à élucider dans une affaire donnée s'inscrit assurément dans le contexte de telles garanties (voir, par exemple, Tanli c. Turquie, no 26129/95, § 150, ECHR 2001-III (extraits), et Van Kück c. Allemagne, no 35968/97, § 55, CEDH 2003-VII), de même que l'indépendance et l'impartialité dont les experts judiciaires doivent faire preuve (Barabanshchikov c. Russie, no 36220/02, § 59, 8 janvier 2009, Bajic, précité, §§ 95 et 102, et Karpisiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 14730/09, § 59, 11 décembre 2012). - EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 54969/09
MEHMET ULUSOY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Cette exigence est particulièrement importante lorsqu'il s'agit de recueillir des expertises médicales (voir, par exemple, Barabanchtchikov c. Russie, no 36220/02, § 59, 8 janvier 2009, et Karpisiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 14730/09, 11 décembre 2012), car il est très probable que les rapports des médecins experts pèsent d'un poids déterminant dans l'appréciation que fera le tribunal de questions hautement complexes de négligence médicale, ce qui leur confère un rôle particulièrement important dans la procédure (Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir c. Islande, no 31930/04, § 47, 5 juillet 2007, Bajic, précité, § 95, et Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, précité, § 217). - EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 42714/13
SCORTE c. ROUMANIE
Cette exigence est particulièrement importante lorsqu'il s'agit de recueillir des expertises médicales (Karpisiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 14730/09, 11 décembre 2012), car il est très probable que les rapports des médecins experts pèsent d'un poids déterminant dans l'appréciation que fera le tribunal de questions hautement complexes de négligence médicale, ce qui leur confère un rôle particulièrement important dans la procédure (Bajic, précité, § 95). - EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 80784/13
VLASE c. ROUMANIE
Cette exigence est particulièrement importante lorsqu'il s'agit de recueillir des expertises médicales (Karpisiewicz c. Pologne (déc.), no 14730/09, 11 décembre 2012), car il est très probable que les rapports des médecins experts pèsent d'un poids déterminant dans l'appréciation que fera le tribunal de questions hautement complexes de négligence médicale, ce qui leur confère un rôle particulièrement important dans la procédure (Bajic, précité, § 95).