Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,62648
EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,62648)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.02.2006 - 14659/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,62648)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Februar 2006 - 14659/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,62648)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,62648) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

    HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    Lord Justice Simon Brown found, referring to paragraphs 82-83 of the Herczegfalvy v. Austria judgment (of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244), that a court must inevitably reach its own view both as to whether the applicant was indeed incapable of consenting (or refusing consent) to the treatment and, depending upon the conclusion on that issue, as to whether the proposed forcible administration of such treatment would threaten his life and so be impermissible under Article 2 of the Convention, would be degrading and so impermissible under Article 3 and would not be justifiable as both necessary and proportionate under Article 8, given the extent to which it would invade the appellant's right to privacy.

    He distinguished Herczegfalvy v. Austria (judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, § 86) on the grounds that, in his case, there was compelling evidence that he had capacity to refuse treatment and/or that the treatment in question was not in his best interests.

  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    It is not disputed, and the Court finds, that the imposition of treatment on the applicant against his will on 17 February 2000 and 8 March 2000 gave rise to an interference with his right to respect for his private life, and in particular his right to physical integrity (on the latter point, see, mutatis mutandis, X. and Y. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, § 22; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, §§ 61 and 63, ECHR 2002-III and Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209/94, 22 July 2003, § 33).
  • EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 24209/94

    Y.F. c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    It is not disputed, and the Court finds, that the imposition of treatment on the applicant against his will on 17 February 2000 and 8 March 2000 gave rise to an interference with his right to respect for his private life, and in particular his right to physical integrity (on the latter point, see, mutatis mutandis, X. and Y. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, § 22; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, §§ 61 and 63, ECHR 2002-III and Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209/94, 22 July 2003, § 33).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

    ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    The Court considers this complaint to be essentially the same as those made in Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, §§ 55-60) and James v. United Kingdom (no. 20447/92, Commission decision of 5 May 1993) and that there is nothing in the facts of the present case which would distinguish it from those cases.
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    The Court recalls that Article 13 requires a domestic remedy in relation to any "arguable claim" of a violation of another Convention right: for the reasons outlined above as regards Articles 3 and 8, the Court does not consider that this application discloses any arguable claim of a violation of Articles 3 or 8 of the Convention (Boyle and Rice v United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

    Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    "The obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 149-50, ECHR 2004-...; A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2699, § 22; Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V, and E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).".
  • EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

    E. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    "The obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 149-50, ECHR 2004-...; A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2699, § 22; Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V, and E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).".
  • EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

    M.C. c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    "The obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 149-50, ECHR 2004-...; A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2699, § 22; Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V, and E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).".
  • EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28323/95

    BUCKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02
    It can also cover treatment, such as anti-psychotic medication, imposed as part of a therapeutic regime (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28323/95).
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