Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUKSA v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 25124/09

  TRZEPALKO v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75749/13

  Even though the applicant didn't pursue a civil remedy in addition to the criminal and disciplinary proceedings, the application cannot be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as the Court's case-law in medical negligence cases against Poland is not categorical on the matter (see a number of cases against Poland where this issue has been left open (Trzepalko v. Poland (dec.), no. 25124/09, § 23, 13 September 2011; Karpisiewicz v. Poland (dec), no. 14730/09, 11 December 2012; see also the recently communicated case of Jorgensen and others v. Denmark, no. 30173/12).

  Where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals and the protection of the lives of patients - which was not contested in the present case - it cannot accept that matters such as an error 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 of 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 (dec.), cited above; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 104, 27 June 2006; Trzepalko v. Poland (dec.), no. 25124/09, 13 September 2011; and Z. v. Poland, no. 46132/08, § 76, 13 November 2012).

• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75749/13

  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, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002 I, and Wiater v. Poland (dec.), no. 42290/08, § 33, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75749/13

  The Court has previously held that it cannot be excluded that acts and omissions of the authorities in the field of health care policy may in some circumstances engage the State's responsibility under Article 2 (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000 V; Nitecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002; and Wiater, cited above, § 34).

 
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75749/13

  It has also held that, with respect to the scope of the State's positive obligations in the provision of health care, an issue may arise under Article 2 where it is shown that the authorities have put an individual's life at risk through the refusal of health care which they have undertaken to make available to the general population (see Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 219, ECHR 2001-IV; Nitecki (dec.), cited above; Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I; Gheorghe v. Romania (dec.), no. 19215/04, 22 September 2005).
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 65653/01

  NITECKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75749/13

  The Court has previously held that it cannot be excluded that acts and omissions of the authorities in the field of health care policy may in some circumstances engage the State's responsibility under Article 2 (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000 V; Nitecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002; and Wiater, cited above, § 34).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 46132/08

  Z v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75749/13

  Where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals and the protection of the lives of patients - which was not contested in the present case - it cannot accept that matters such as an error 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 of 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 (dec.), cited above; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 104, 27 June 2006; Trzepalko v. Poland (dec.), no. 25124/09, 13 September 2011; and Z. v. Poland, no. 46132/08, § 76, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 42290/08

  WIATER v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 75749/13

  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, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002 I, and Wiater v. Poland (dec.), no. 42290/08, § 33, 15 May 2012).