Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.R. v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies victim) Violation of Art. 3 (susbtantive aspect) Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.R. c. POLOGNE [Extraits]

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exceptions préliminaires jointes au fond et rejetées (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes victime) Violation de l'art. 3 (volet matériel) Violation de l'art. 8 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  [DEU] Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;victim);Violation of Art. 3 (susbtantive aspect);Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsanmerkung)

  Gentest verweigern kann unmenschlich sein

Wird zitiert von ... (21)

• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 9300/07

  Herrmann ./. Deutschland

  Der Beteiligte 3 führt aus, dass der Gerichtshof anerkannt hat, dass Artikel 9 der Konvention das Recht auf Dienstverweigerung aus Gewissengründen in der Sache Bayatyan (…a.a.O., Rdnr. 111) in Bezug auf die Wehrpflicht und in der Sache R.R../. Polen (Nr. 27617/04, Rdnr. 206, CEDH 2011) in Bezug auf die Abtreibungspraxis von Angehörigen der Heilberufe umfasst.
• EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 54270/10

  COSTA ET PAVAN c. ITALIE

  Factors such as sexual identity, orientation and life also fall within the personal sphere protected by Article 8 (see, for example, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45, and Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, 19 February 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I), as does the right to respect for the decisions to become or not to become a parent (see Evans, cited above, § 71; A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 212, ECHR 2010; and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, § 181, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"

  The applicable provisions of domestic law are extensively summarised in the judgments of Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, 20 March 2007, and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, 26 May 2011.

  For the Court, States are obliged to organise their health service system in such a way as to ensure that the effective exercise of freedom of conscience by health professionals in a professional context does not prevent patients from obtaining access to services to which they are entitled under the applicable legislation (see R.R. v. Poland, cited above, no. 27617/04, § 206).

  I voted against a finding of a violation of Article 8 "as regards the determination of access to lawful abortion in respect of both applicants" (point 3 of the operative part of the judgment) for substantially the same reasons advanced in paragraphs 4 and 5 of my partly dissenting opinion in R.R. v. Poland (no. 27617/04, 26 May 2011).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Their situation is therefore not comparable to those of persons in custody who complain of a lack of medical treatment (see, for example, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 109-16, ECHR 2001-III; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, §§ 47-58, ECHR 2003-V; and Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no. 28300/06, §§ 85-98, 20 January 2009), seriously ill persons who would be unable to obtain treatment if removed to a country which lacks adequate medical facilities (see N. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 32-51, and the cases cited therein), or persons in a vulnerable situation who have, as a result of rank indifference on the part of health care professionals, been denied access to otherwise available diagnostic services to which they were entitled as a matter of law (see R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, §§ 148-62, 26 May 2011).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  It is also highly debatable whether there is a Convention right of access to pre-natal screening (see Costa and Pavan v. Italy, no. 54270/10, 28 August 2012, and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts); see also my opinion joined to the Parrillo v. Italy judgment ([GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015)).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21

  M.L. v. POLAND

  In their view, the case should be distinguished from R.R. v. Poland (no. 27617/04, §§ 159-160, ECHR 2011 (extracts)), in which the Court found that the applicant's suffering, caused by the doctors' intentional failure to provide timely prenatal examination that would have allowed her to take a decision as to whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy, had reached the minimum threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention.

  The Court's case-law expressly acknowledges the vulnerable situation in which a woman is placed when learning that the foetus is affected by a malformation (see R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, § 159, 26 May 2011).

• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 43399/13

  Y.P. v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the notion of "private life" includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see, for instance, Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 107, ECHR 2007-I, and the cases cited therein) and also applies to decisions both to have and not to have a child or become parents (see Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007-I; A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 212, ECHR 2010; and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, § 180, ECHR 2011).

  [6] See, inter alia, M.S.S. v. Belgium [GC], no. 30696/09, § 22, 21 January 2011; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 106-107, 11 July 2006; V. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24888/94, § 71, 16 December 1999; and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, § 151, 26 May 2011.

• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 12209/10

  MACALIN MOXAMED SED DAHIR c. SUISSE

  L'article 8 ne renferme certes aucune exigence procédurale explicite mais il importe, pour la jouissance effective des droits garantis par cette disposition, que le processus décisionnel soit équitable et permette de respecter comme il se doit les intérêts de l'individu protégés par cette disposition (Golemanova, précité, § 40 et R.R. c. Pologne, no 27617/04, § 191, CEDH 2011 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 41216/13

  PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  A violation of both Articles 3 and 8 was found in R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and no violation of Article 3, but a violation of Article 8 in Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, ECHR 2007-I.
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 58502/11

  ABDYUSHEVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Leur situation est donc différente de celle de personnes détenues qui se plaignent d'un défaut de soins (voir, par exemple, S?‚awomir Musia?‚ c. Pologne, no 28300/06, §§ 85-98, 20 janvier 2009), de personnes gravement malades qui, en cas d'éloignement, ferait face, en raison de l'absence de traitements adéquats dans le pays de destination ou du défaut d'accès à ceux-ci, à un risque réel d'être exposée à un déclin grave, rapide et irréversible de son état de santé entraînant des souffrances intenses ou à une réduction significative de son espérance de vie ne pourraient bénéficier d'un traitement médical si elles étaient éloignées vers un pays ne disposant pas de moyens médicaux adéquats (Paposhvili, précité, § 183), de personnes se trouvant dans une situation vulnérable et s'étant vu refuser, du fait de l'incurie des professionnels de la santé, l'accès à des services de diagnostic par ailleurs disponibles auxquels elles avaient droit en vertu de la loi (R.R. c. Pologne, no 27617/04, §§ 148-162, CEDH 2011) ou d'une personne héroïnomane qui suivait, avant d'être incarcérée, un traitement de substitution par la méthadone et qui en était privé en prison où seule une thérapie fondée sur l'abstinence lui fut dispensée, sans traitement de substitution d'appoint (Wenner, précité, § 8).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 33011/08

  A.K. v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 32265/10

  HENRY KISMOUN c. FRANCE
• EGMR - 15541/20 (anhängig)

  PINDO MULLA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 14709/07

  MAYBORODA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 61860/15

  JACQUINET ET EMBAREK BEN MOHAMED c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 67171/17

  B.B. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 27915/06

  DASKALOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 6194/06

  ZAHARIEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 5578/12

  S.F.K. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 29419/17

  JURISIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 39974/10

  M.P. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA