Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,4153
EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,4153)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.03.2016 - 23796/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,4153)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. März 2016 - 23796/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,4153)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,4153) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    VASILEVA v. BULGARIA

    No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

    PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    The Court finds that this complaint is to be examined solely under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I).
  • EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06

    SHELLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    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, 06.12.2001 - 44393/98

    FIORENZA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    It is now well established that although the right to health is not as such among the rights guaranteed under the Convention or its Protocols (see Fiorenza v. Italy (dec.), no. 44393/98, 28 November 2000; Pastorino and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 17640/02, 11 July 2006; and Dossi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 26053/07, 12 October 2010), the High Contracting Parties have, parallel to their positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, a positive obligation under its Article 8, firstly, to have in place regulations compelling both public and private hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients" physical integrity and, secondly, to provide victims of medical negligence access to proceedings in which they could, in appropriate cases, obtain compensation for damage (see Trocellier v. France (dec.), no. 75725/01, ECHR 2006-XIV; Benderskiy v. Ukraine, no. 22750/02, §§ 61-62, 15 November 2007; Codarcea v. Romania, no. 31675/04, §§ 102-03, 2 June 2009; Yardimci v. Turkey, no. 25266/05, §§ 55-57, 5 January 2010; Spyra and Kranczkowski v. Poland, no. 19764/07, §§ 82 and 86-87, 25 September 2012; Csoma v. Romania, no. 8759/05, §§ 41 and 43, 15 January 2013; and S.B. v. Romania, no. 24453/04, §§ 65-66, 23 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 25266/05

    YARDIMCI c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    It is now well established that although the right to health is not as such among the rights guaranteed under the Convention or its Protocols (see Fiorenza v. Italy (dec.), no. 44393/98, 28 November 2000; Pastorino and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 17640/02, 11 July 2006; and Dossi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 26053/07, 12 October 2010), the High Contracting Parties have, parallel to their positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, a positive obligation under its Article 8, firstly, to have in place regulations compelling both public and private hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients" physical integrity and, secondly, to provide victims of medical negligence access to proceedings in which they could, in appropriate cases, obtain compensation for damage (see Trocellier v. France (dec.), no. 75725/01, ECHR 2006-XIV; Benderskiy v. Ukraine, no. 22750/02, §§ 61-62, 15 November 2007; Codarcea v. Romania, no. 31675/04, §§ 102-03, 2 June 2009; Yardimci v. Turkey, no. 25266/05, §§ 55-57, 5 January 2010; Spyra and Kranczkowski v. Poland, no. 19764/07, §§ 82 and 86-87, 25 September 2012; Csoma v. Romania, no. 8759/05, §§ 41 and 43, 15 January 2013; and S.B. v. Romania, no. 24453/04, §§ 65-66, 23 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

    HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    47039/11 and 358/12, § 119, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), and in choosing how to comply with their positive obligations and organise their judicial systems (see paragraph 67 above), there is no basis on which to hold that the Convention requires a special mechanism which facilitates the bringing of medical malpractice claims or a reversal of the burden of proof in such cases, as suggested by the applicant.
  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 26053/07

    DOSSI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    It is now well established that although the right to health is not as such among the rights guaranteed under the Convention or its Protocols (see Fiorenza v. Italy (dec.), no. 44393/98, 28 November 2000; Pastorino and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 17640/02, 11 July 2006; and Dossi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 26053/07, 12 October 2010), the High Contracting Parties have, parallel to their positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, a positive obligation under its Article 8, firstly, to have in place regulations compelling both public and private hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients" physical integrity and, secondly, to provide victims of medical negligence access to proceedings in which they could, in appropriate cases, obtain compensation for damage (see Trocellier v. France (dec.), no. 75725/01, ECHR 2006-XIV; Benderskiy v. Ukraine, no. 22750/02, §§ 61-62, 15 November 2007; Codarcea v. Romania, no. 31675/04, §§ 102-03, 2 June 2009; Yardimci v. Turkey, no. 25266/05, §§ 55-57, 5 January 2010; Spyra and Kranczkowski v. Poland, no. 19764/07, §§ 82 and 86-87, 25 September 2012; Csoma v. Romania, no. 8759/05, §§ 41 and 43, 15 January 2013; and S.B. v. Romania, no. 24453/04, §§ 65-66, 23 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 77144/01

    Rechtssache C. und T. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    77144/01 and 35493/05, §§ 19-20, 5 March 2009; and Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 95, 9 April 2009), compensation for medical malpractice can be claimed under the law of tort or contract (see paragraph 44 above).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 17640/02

    PASTORINO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    It is now well established that although the right to health is not as such among the rights guaranteed under the Convention or its Protocols (see Fiorenza v. Italy (dec.), no. 44393/98, 28 November 2000; Pastorino and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 17640/02, 11 July 2006; and Dossi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 26053/07, 12 October 2010), the High Contracting Parties have, parallel to their positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, a positive obligation under its Article 8, firstly, to have in place regulations compelling both public and private hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients" physical integrity and, secondly, to provide victims of medical negligence access to proceedings in which they could, in appropriate cases, obtain compensation for damage (see Trocellier v. France (dec.), no. 75725/01, ECHR 2006-XIV; Benderskiy v. Ukraine, no. 22750/02, §§ 61-62, 15 November 2007; Codarcea v. Romania, no. 31675/04, §§ 102-03, 2 June 2009; Yardimci v. Turkey, no. 25266/05, §§ 55-57, 5 January 2010; Spyra and Kranczkowski v. Poland, no. 19764/07, §§ 82 and 86-87, 25 September 2012; Csoma v. Romania, no. 8759/05, §§ 41 and 43, 15 January 2013; and S.B. v. Romania, no. 24453/04, §§ 65-66, 23 September 2014).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 35493/05
    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    77144/01 and 35493/05, §§ 19-20, 5 March 2009; and Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 95, 9 April 2009), compensation for medical malpractice can be claimed under the law of tort or contract (see paragraph 44 above).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

    König ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10
    At the same time, the High Contracting Parties have a margin of appreciation in choosing how to comply with their positive obligations under the Convention (see, as a recent authority, Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 144, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), and enjoy considerable freedom in the choice of the means calculated to ensure that their judicial systems meet its requirements (see, albeit in different contexts, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 100, Series A no. 27; Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, §§ 83 and 84, 16 November 2010; and Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, § 120, 10 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

    POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 5989/03

    IVERSEN v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 45325/06

    LOPEZ c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 19764/07

    SPYRA ET KRANCZKOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 75725/01

    TROCELLIER v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 8759/05

    CSOMA v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

    BOTOYAN v. ARMENIA

    It should further be borne in mind that in discharging their positive obligations towards the alleged victims of medical malpractice, the authorities must also have regard to counter-considerations, such as the risk of unjustifiably exposing medical practitioners to liability, which can compromise their professional morale and induce them to practise, often to the detriment of their patients, what has come to be known as "defensive medicine" (see Vasileva v. Bulgaria, no. 23796/10, § 70, 17 March 2016, and Jurica v. Croatia, no. 30376/13, § 89, 2 May 2017).
  • EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 50772/11

    ERDINÇ KURT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Elle rappelle également que les principes qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 2 de la Convention dans le domaine de la négligence médicale s'appliquent également sous l'angle de l'article 8 lorsqu'il s'agit d'atteintes à l'intégrité physique ne mettant pas en cause le droit à la vie (voir, entre autres, Vasileva c. Bulgarie, no 23796/10, § 63, 17 mars 2016, et Codarcea c. Roumanie, no 31675/04, § 101, 2 juin 2009).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2021 - 63687/14

    VILELA ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

    Elle rappelle également que les obligations découlant de l'article 8 de la Convention coïncident largement avec celles découlant de l'article 2 (Brincat et autres c. Malte, nos 60908/11 et 4 autres, § 102, 24 juillet 2014, Vasileva c. Bulgarie, no 23796/10, § 63, 17 mars 2016, et, pour les principes généraux, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes c. Portugal [GC], no 56080/13, §§ 185-196, 19 décembre 2017).
  • EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 54969/09

    MEHMET ULUSOY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    La Cour a déjà rappelé qu'entrent dans le champ de l'article 8 de la Convention les questions liées à l'intégrité morale et physique des individus, tout comme celles relevant du droit à la santé de ces derniers (paragraphe 64 in fine ci-dessus) et qu'en la matière les principes dégagés de l'article 2 relativement à la protection de la vie des malades valent sans conteste (voir, par exemple, Trocellier, décision précitée, Geceku?Ÿu c. Turquie (déc.), no 28870/05, 25 mai 2010, Dossi et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 26053/07, 12 octobre 2010, Vasileva c. Bulgarie, no 23796/10, § 63, 17 mars 2016, et Erdinç Kurt et autres, précité, § 51).
  • OLG München, 27.06.2012 - 20 U 5093/11
    unter Abänderung des Urteils der 22. Zivilkammer des Landgerichts München I vom 24.11.2011 - 23796/10 - die Klage abzuweisen,.
  • EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 18308/10

    B.I. c. TURQUIE

    Elle rappelle également que les obligations découlant de l'article 8 coïncident largement avec celles de l'article 2 de la Convention (Brincat et autres c. Malte, nos 60908/11 et 4 autres, § 102, 24 juillet 2014, Vasileva c. Bulgarie, no 23796/10, § 63, 17 mars 2016, et, pour les principes généraux, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes c. Portugal [GC], no 56080/13, §§ 164-196, 19 décembre 2017).
  • EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 55431/09

    BARLETTA ET FARNETANO c. ITALIE

    Cela implique, entre autres, que la procédure soit achevée dans un délai raisonnable (Vasileva c. Bulgarie, no 23796/10, § 65, 17 mars 2016).
  • EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 14709/07

    MAYBORODA v. UKRAINE

    In the light of its case-law, the Court considers that the present complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention (compare Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 66, ECHR 2007-I; Vasileva v. Bulgaria, no. 23796/10, § 57-58, 17 March 2016; and Y.P. v. Russia, no. 43399/13, §§ 34 and 37-38, 20 September 2022).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 36105/17

    DURAK c. TURQUIE

    Elle rappelle également que les principes qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 2 de la Convention dans le domaine de la négligence médicale s'appliquent aussi sous l'angle de l'article 8 lorsqu'il est question d'atteintes à l'intégrité physique ne mettant pas en cause le droit à la vie (voir, entre autres, Codarcea c. Roumanie, no 31675/04, § 101, 2 juin 2009, Vasileva c. Bulgarie, no 23796/10, § 63, 17 mars 2016, et, pour les principes généraux, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes c. Portugal [GC], no 56080/13, §§ 185-196, 19 décembre 2017).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 55303/12

    KANAL c. TURQUIE

    Elle rappelle également que les obligations découlant de l'article 8 coïncident largement avec celles de l'article 2 de la Convention (Brincat et autres c. Malte, nos 60908/11 et 4 autres, § 102, 24 juillet 2014, Vasileva c. Bulgarie, no 23796/10, § 63, 17 mars 2016, et, pour les principes généraux, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes c. Portugal [GC], no 56080/13, §§ 185-196, 19 décembre 2017).
  • EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 43185/11

    ELVAN ALKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 10491/12

    IBRAHIM KESKIN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 42821/18

    M c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 15297/17

    MARCIULESCU ET NEACSU c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 19499/10

    ASKIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 12370/10

    AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

    DEMIR v. TURKEY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht