Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UZEA v. ROMANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  UZEA v. ROMANIA

  Art. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 24109/07

  ASIYE GENÇ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 63662/17

  Even though they did not expressly refer to Article 8 of the Convention, the courts established that there had been a serious interference with the third applicant's physical integrity and awarded her compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (see paragraph 2 above), the amount of which was considerably higher than that normally granted by the Court in similar cases (see Asiye Genç v. Turkey, no. 24109/07, § 90, 27 January 2015, where, in the context of medical negligence involving the death of the applicant's son, after having found a breach of Article 2 of the Convention, the Court granted the applicant EUR 65, 000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage).
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 55569/08

  V.V.G. v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 63662/17

  Furthermore, if the right to personal integrity has not been infringed intentionally, in the specific sphere of medical negligence the positive obligation imposed under the Convention may be satisfied if the legal system affords victims a remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the criminal courts, enabling any liability on the part of the doctors concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see, mutatis mutandis, V.V.G. v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 55569/08, § 41, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR, 25.05.2010 - 28870/05

  GECEKUSU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 63662/17

  Bearing in mind that both the course of events at the hospital and the decisions taken by the doctors were exposed to public scrutiny and noting that the proceedings, albeit rather lengthy, resulted in a criminal conviction - that of one of the doctors involved at the third applicant's birth, while for the other one the investigation was closed because prescription had intervened without there being any long periods of inactivity attributable to the authorities - the Court does not find any serious defects in the authorities' conduct (see, mutatis mutandis, Gecekusu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28870/05, 25 May 2010).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.2021 - 63687/14

  VILELA ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 63662/17

  Having regard to its long-standing case-law on similar matters and to the manner in which the applicants formulated their complaints (see paragraph 6 above) the Court will examine the applicants' complaints from the viewpoint of Article 8 only, under its substantive and procedural limbs (see Vilela and Others v. Portugal, no. 63687/14, § 65, 23 February 2021).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 62870/13

  BILBIJA AND BLAZEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 63662/17

  However, the Court does not observe in respect of the impugned investigation the existence of long periods of unexplained inactivity, nor any visible lack of coordination on the part of the domestic authorities (contrast Bilbija and Bla?¾evic v. Croatia, no. 62870/13, § 108, 12 January 2016).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 30376/13

  JURICA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 63662/17

  These principles are also applicable in the same context to an interference with the right to physical integrity, as in the present case, which falls within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention (see Trocellier v. France, no. 75725/01, 5 October 2006, and Jurica v. Croatia, no. 30376/13, §§ 84-88, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 75725/01

  TROCELLIER v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 63662/17

  These principles are also applicable in the same context to an interference with the right to physical integrity, as in the present case, which falls within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention (see Trocellier v. France, no. 75725/01, 5 October 2006, and Jurica v. Croatia, no. 30376/13, §§ 84-88, 2 May 2017).