Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HILLER v. AUSTRIA

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HILLER v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HILLER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  It also follows from the case-law on Article 5 of the Convention that a deprivation of liberty must be lifted immediately if the circumstances necessitating it cease to exist or change (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, § 59, 18 February 2014) or must be scaled down to the extent which is absolutely necessary under the given circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 2000-III; Johnson, cited above, § 63; Luberti v. Italy, no. 9019/80, § 27 Series A no. 75).
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 31322/07

  HAAS c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  The Court further reiterates that Article 2 may imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual from another individual or, in particular circumstances, from himself (see Renolde, cited above, § 81, and Haas v. Switzerland, no. 31322/07, § 54, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  It also follows from the case-law on Article 5 of the Convention that a deprivation of liberty must be lifted immediately if the circumstances necessitating it cease to exist or change (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, § 59, 18 February 2014) or must be scaled down to the extent which is absolutely necessary under the given circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 2000-III; Johnson, cited above, § 63; Luberti v. Italy, no. 9019/80, § 27 Series A no. 75).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  States are required to make regulations compelling hospitals, whether public or private, to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients" lives and 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 Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, § 80, 17 January 2008, and Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  In the case of mentally ill patients, consideration must be given to their particular vulnerability (see, mutatis mutandis, Keenan, cited above, § 111; Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, § 63, 11 July 2006; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 131, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  It also follows from the case-law on Article 5 of the Convention that a deprivation of liberty must be lifted immediately if the circumstances necessitating it cease to exist or change (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, § 59, 18 February 2014) or must be scaled down to the extent which is absolutely necessary under the given circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 2000-III; Johnson, cited above, § 63; Luberti v. Italy, no. 9019/80, § 27 Series A no. 75).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03

  RIVIERE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  In the case of mentally ill patients, consideration must be given to their particular vulnerability (see, mutatis mutandis, Keenan, cited above, § 111; Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, § 63, 11 July 2006; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 131, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  It also follows from the case-law on Article 5 of the Convention that a deprivation of liberty must be lifted immediately if the circumstances necessitating it cease to exist or change (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, § 59, 18 February 2014) or must be scaled down to the extent which is absolutely necessary under the given circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 2000-III; Johnson, cited above, § 63; Luberti v. Italy, no. 9019/80, § 27 Series A no. 75).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  The well-established definition of "real and immediate" implies that the risk must be "substantial or significant" "not a remote or fanciful one" and "real and ever-present" (see cases such as Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 108, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 1967/14

  It also follows from the case-law on Article 5 of the Convention that a deprivation of liberty must be lifted immediately if the circumstances necessitating it cease to exist or change (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, § 59, 18 February 2014) or must be scaled down to the extent which is absolutely necessary under the given circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 2000-III; Johnson, cited above, § 63; Luberti v. Italy, no. 9019/80, § 27 Series A no. 75).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 78103/14

  FERNANDES DE OLIVEIRA v. PORTUGAL

  However, in the particular circumstances of the danger of self-harm, the Court has held that for a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the relevant time that the life of the person concerned was at real and immediate risk and that they had not taken measures which could reasonably have been expected of them (see Hiller v. Austria, no. 1967/14, §§ 52-53, 22 November 2016, and Keenan, cited above, § 93).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23405/16

  S.F. c. SUISSE

  La Cour a reconnu que des mesures excessivement restrictives pouvaient soulever des problèmes au regard des articles 3, 5 et 8 de la Convention (Fernandes de Oliveira, précité, § 112, et Hiller c. Autriche, no 1967/14, § 55, 22 novembre 2016).
• EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 41603/13

  FABRIS ET PARZIALE c. ITALIE

  La Cour a reconnu que des mesures excessivement restrictives pouvaient soulever des problèmes au regard des articles 3, 5 et 8 de la Convention (Hiller c. Autriche, no 1967/14, § 55, 22 novembre 2016).

 
• LSG Baden-Württemberg, 13.07.2017 - L 6 U 1375/16
  Hiergegen hat der Kläger am 23. Juli 2014 Klage beim SG erhoben (S 5 U 1967/14).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 14185/14

  V.P. v. ESTONIA

  As to the States" obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, it requires the State not only to refrain from the "intentional" taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-I; Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; and Hiller v. Austria, no. 1967/14, § 47, 22 November 2016).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 44392/19

  CHEVALIER c. FRANCE

  La Cour a précisé que l'obligation de prendre préventivement des mesures d'ordre pratique existe notamment en cas d'internement psychiatrique, qu'il soit volontaire ou d'office (Hiller c. Autriche, no 1967/14, § 48, 22 novembre 2016).