Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOLACZYK AND KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOLACZYK AND KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  The Court accepts that it is impossible to exclude acts and omissions by the authorities in the field of health care policy in certain circumstances engaging 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 patients" lives - which was not contested in the present case - it cannot accept that matters such as errors 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 in 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).

  When an applicant accepts compensation in settlement of a civil claim based on medical negligence he or she is in principle no longer able to claim to be a victim in respect of the circumstances surrounding the administered treatment or with regard to the investigation carried out (Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; see also Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 41894/98

  HAY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  When an applicant accepts compensation in settlement of a civil claim based on medical negligence he or she is in principle no longer able to claim to be a victim in respect of the circumstances surrounding the administered treatment or with regard to the investigation carried out (Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; see also Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  The procedural obligation under the Article 2 requires 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 held accountable (see, among other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 192, 9 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 27156/02

  MORBY contre le LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 67660/01

  KOVACS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, and Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 27294/08

  KONCZELSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  Accordingly, for the purposes of Article 34, the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb (see, for similar circumstances in the context of medical malpractice, Konczelska v. Poland (dec.), 27294/08, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 46132/08

  Z v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  Admittedly, the first sentence of Article 2 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see, among other authorities, L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Jasinska v. Poland, no. 28326/05, § 57, 1 June 2010; and Z v. Poland, no. 46132/08, § 76, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  In so far as the applicants" complaint also concerns the procedural obligations of the State arising under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that even if the Convention does not as such guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third parties, the Court has said on a number of occasions that the effective judicial system required by Article 2 may, and under certain circumstances must, include recourse to the criminal law (see, among other authorities, Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 34215/11

  In so far as the applicants" complaint also concerns the procedural obligations of the State arising under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that even if the Convention does not as such guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third parties, the Court has said on a number of occasions that the effective judicial system required by Article 2 may, and under certain circumstances must, include recourse to the criminal law (see, among other authorities, Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 42434/15

  MARDOSAI v. LITHUANIA

  In its decision in Kolaczyk and Kwiatkowski v. Poland (no. 34215/11, 22 October 2013), the Court found that "the action for damages in the civil courts was an effective remedy that enabled the applicants to obtain redress... Therefore it is not necessary to assess the effectiveness of the criminal investigation carried out in the present case.

  Kolaczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 34215/11, § 50; see also Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 91, ECHR 2004-VIII.

• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 69950/14

  ZWIERZ v. POLAND

  It is the Court's settled case-law that where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 179-81, ECHR 2006-V; Kolaczyk and Kwiatkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34215/11, § 40, 22 October 2013; and Kekelashvili, cited above § 44).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 21024/08

  PANOVY v. RUSSIA

  There is also nothing to indicate that, for any reason, the applicants were unable to effectively participate in the civil proceedings (ibid., § 68, and Kolaczyk and Kwiatkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34215/11, § 49, 22 October 2013).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 35861/11

  KEKELASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  It is the Court's settled case-law that where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 179-81, ECHR 2006-V, and Kolaczyk and Kwiatkowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34215/11, § 40, 22 October 2013).