Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEKSEJEVA v. LATVIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life Respect for private life) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  Law which confers discretion on public authorities is not in itself contrary to that requirement (Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 135, 28 November 2002, and Wegera v. Poland, no. 141/07, § 71, 19 January 2010).
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  The Court in its case-law with regard to the protection of vulnerable prisoners has clarified that the national authorities have an obligation to take all steps reasonably expected to prevent real and immediate risks to the respective prisoners" physical integrity, of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see, among many other examples, Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 190, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 84, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

  PREMININY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  The Court in its case-law with regard to the protection of vulnerable prisoners has clarified that the national authorities have an obligation to take all steps reasonably expected to prevent real and immediate risks to the respective prisoners" physical integrity, of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see, among many other examples, Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 190, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 84, 10 February 2011).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  Even so, any restriction on a detained person's right to respect for their private and family life must be applied "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, 17 July 2007).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 25001/07

  STASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  The extent of this obligation of protection depends on the particular circumstances of each case (Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 79, 20 October 2011).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 141/07

  WEGERA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  Law which confers discretion on public authorities is not in itself contrary to that requirement (Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 135, 28 November 2002, and Wegera v. Poland, no. 141/07, § 71, 19 January 2010).
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 39631/06

  GRADEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  The expression "in accordance with the law" not only necessitates compliance with domestic law, but also relates to the quality of that law (Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 79, 4 July 2000, and Gradek v. Poland, no. 39631/06, § 42, 8 June 2010).

• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 26576/10

  TOTOLICI c. ROUMANIE

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour estime que les autorités nationales ont pris en compte la qualité d'agent de police du requérant et ont entendu lui assurer une certaine protection conformément à la loi interne (paragraphe 39 ci-dessus, et, mutatis mutandis, Aleksejeva c. Lettonie, no 21780/07, § 38-39, 3 juillet 2012).
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15

  A.T. v. ESTONIA

  On the other hand, the States have an obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and that this, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 102, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 56668/12

  KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER v. BULGARIA

  In any event, while it is clear that the authorities have an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect a detainee from inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by other detainees, especially if they have reason to believe that the detainee is particularly vulnerable - for instance because he or she is suffering from a psychological disorder (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, §§ 189-92, 3 June 2003), is of young age (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 86, 10 February 2011), or belongs to a category that is at heightened risk (see Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-70, 27 May 2008 (Serbs convicted of war crimes against Bosniacs and kept, unsegregated, in a prison where about ninety per cent of inmates were Bosniacs); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011 (homosexuals); J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012 (police collaborators); Aleksejeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012 (relatives of prison guards); Starovoitovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 27343/05, §§ 35-38, 27 November 2012 (private security guards); D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 81, 29 October 2013 (sexual offenders); Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014 (police officers); and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015 (persons accused of sexually abusing minors)) - or to believe that the other detainees have an increased propensity to violence (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 57-60, ECHR 2002-II, and Oshurko v. Ukraine, no. 33108/05, § 72, 8 September 2011), there is no evidence - and the applicant has not elaborated on that point either - that in her case the hospital staff knew or ought to have known that she stood a real risk of being assaulted by the other patient in the shower.