Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  Apart from the concern for the respect of the rights inherent in Article 2 of the Convention in each individual case, more general considerations, such as the safety of users of health services, also call for a prompt examination of cases concerning medical negligence (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, for example, Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, §§ 49-51; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2002-II; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 117, 27 June 2006 or Silih v. Slovenia [GC] referred to above, §§ 192-196).

  "As the Court has held on several occasions, the procedural obligation of Article 2 requires the 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 made accountable (see, among other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 49, and Powell v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V).".

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and to ensure the accountability of those responsible (Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 110, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  The Court has recently found that this procedural obligation has evolved into a separate and autonomous duty (for a recapitulation of the relevant principles see, for example, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, §§ 48-49, ECHR 2002-I; Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, § 70, ECHR 2008-... and Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, §§ 157 and 159, 9 April 2009, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  In the present case Ms Ivana Dvorácková had died before the application was introduced, and the case is therefore to be distinguished from cases in which an applicant's heirs were permitted to pursue an application which had already been introduced (see Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 24790/04, 8 March 2005, with reference back to Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  The Court considers that there are no concrete factors which could deprive the civil courts of their ability to establish the facts and determine any liability for Ms I. Dvorácková's death notwithstanding the lapse of time following the relevant events which will make it difficult for the civil courts to piece together the evidence (see also, mutatis mutandis, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 118-119, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  Apart from the concern for the respect of the rights inherent in Article 2 of the Convention in each individual case, more general considerations, such as the safety of users of health services, also call for a prompt examination of cases concerning medical negligence (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, for example, Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, §§ 49-51; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2002-II; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 117, 27 June 2006 or Silih v. Slovenia [GC] referred to above, §§ 192-196).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  The Court reiterates that the existence of a victim of a violation, that is to say, an individual who is personally affected by an alleged violation of a Convention right, is indispensable for putting the protection mechanism of the Convention into motion, although this criterion is not to be applied in a rigid, mechanical and inflexible way throughout the proceedings (see Karner v. Austria, 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

  AZINAS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  At the same time it requires in principle that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at international level should have been aired before domestic authorities, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 67, 28 March 2006 or Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007).
• EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 24790/04

  FAIRFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  In the present case Ms Ivana Dvorácková had died before the application was introduced, and the case is therefore to be distinguished from cases in which an applicant's heirs were permitted to pursue an application which had already been introduced (see Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 24790/04, 8 March 2005, with reference back to Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03

  HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Ainsi, dans un certain nombre d'affaires où la victime directe était décédée avant l'introduction de la requête, la Cour a refusé de reconnaître à cette victime directe, fût-elle représentée, un locus standi aux fins de l'article 34 de la Convention (Aizpurua Ortiz et autres c. Espagne, no 42430/05, § 30, 2 février 2010, Dvorácek et Dvorácková c. Slovaquie, no 30754/04, § 41, 28 juillet 2009, et Kaya et Polat c. Turquie (déc.), nos 2794/05 et 40345/05, 21 octobre 2008).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court's approach to cases introduced by applicants themselves and only continued by their relatives after their deaths differs from its approach to cases in which the application has been lodged after the death of the direct victim (see Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 24790/04, 8 March 2005; Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, § 20, 2 February 2006; Direkçi v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47826/99, 3 October 2006; Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, § 91, 8 April 2008; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 39, 28 July 2009; and Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, § 52, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 68453/13

  PAJIC v. CROATIA

  9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007; and Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 54, 28 July 2009).

 
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 4605/05

  PETROVA v. LATVIA

  The Court notes at the outset that an application cannot in principle be brought in the name of a deceased person, because he or she cannot be considered to be a "person" ("personne physique" in French) for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention (see Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 41, 28 July 2009, and Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain, no. 42430/05, § 30, 2 February 2010).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6978/08

  GHEORGHE COBZARU c. ROUMANIE

  Le Gouvernement estime que la somme demandée par le requérant est excessive et renvoie à la jurisprudence de la Cour dans des affaires similaires à ses yeux (Maiorano et autres c. Italie, no 28634/06, § 251, 15 décembre 2009 ; Trufin c. Roumanie, no 3990/04, § 57, 20 octobre 2009 ; Dvorácek et Dvorácková c. Slovaquie, no 30754/04, § 100, 28 juillet 2009 ; Esat Bayram c. Turquie, no 75535/01, § 60, 26 mai 2009, et Sandru c. Roumanie, no 22465/03, § 89, 8 décembre 2009).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 38359/13

  DZINIC v. CROATIA

  9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007; and Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 54, 28 July 2009).
• EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  PLECHLO v. SLOVAKIA

  Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Court cannot accept the standing of Mr J. Plechlo Jr. under Article 34 of the Convention to complain about an alleged violation of the applicant's rights after his death (see, for example, Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 41, 28 July 2009).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 13904/07

  KUDRA v. CROATIA

  At the same time it requires in principle that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at international level should have been aired before the domestic authorities, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 67, 28 March 2006; Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007; and Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 54, 28 July 2009).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 41108/10

  BAJIC v. CROATIA

  At the same time it requires in principle that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at international level should have been aired before domestic authorities, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 67, 28 March 2006; Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007; and Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 54, 28 July 2009).
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 35802/05

  FRANDES c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle tout d'abord que l'obligation procédurale que recèle l'article 2 est une obligation distincte et indépendante des actes concernant les aspects matériels de cet article (Silih c. Slovénie [GC], no 71463/01, § 159, 9 avril 2009 ; Dvorácek et Dvorácková c. Slovaquie, no 30754/04, § 53, 28 juillet 2009, et Varnava et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 et 16073/90, §§ 136 et 138, 18 septembre 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 22035/10

  KERIMAN TEKIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 47384/11

  SIDIKA IMREN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 51474/13

  KAMINSKA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 12300/12

  KESZELI v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 74550/12

  KUCEJOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA