Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANNA TODOROVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 23302/03
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03
• EGMR - 23302/03

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANNA TODOROVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (susbtantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 23302/03
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03
• EGMR - 23302/03

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

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  The Court has held, in relation to the medical sphere, that in case of deaths of patients in care, whether in the public or private sector, the above obligation calls for an effective judicial system which can determine the cause of death and bring those responsible to account (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 192, 9 April 2009).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38501/02

  AL FAYED c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  Although in some situations compliance with that obligation entails resort to criminal-law remedies (see Öneryıldız, cited above, § 93, concerning a dangerous household-refuse tip, as well as Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007, and Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 28, 5 January 2010, concerning road traffic accidents in which lives were lost in suspicious circumstances), if the infringement of the right to life is not intentional, Article 2 does not necessarily require such remedies; the State may meet its obligation by affording victims a civil-law remedy, either alone or in conjunction with a criminal-law one, enabling any responsibility of the individuals concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see Calvelli and Ciglio, § 51; Vo, § 90; and Silih, § 194, all cited above).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  The same applies to deaths resulting from road traffic accidents (see Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007).

 
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  RAILEAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  Although in some situations compliance with that obligation entails resort to criminal-law remedies (see Öneryıldız, cited above, § 93, concerning a dangerous household-refuse tip, as well as Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007, and Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 28, 5 January 2010, concerning road traffic accidents in which lives were lost in suspicious circumstances), if the infringement of the right to life is not intentional, Article 2 does not necessarily require such remedies; the State may meet its obligation by affording victims a civil-law remedy, either alone or in conjunction with a criminal-law one, enabling any responsibility of the individuals concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see Calvelli and Ciglio, § 51; Vo, § 90; and Silih, § 194, all cited above).
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  OYAL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  However, that remedy should exist not only in theory; it must operate effectively in practice, within a time-span allowing the case to be examined without unnecessary delay (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 53 in fine; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 105 in fine, 27 June 2006; Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, §§ 83 in fine and 95, ECHR 2008-...; Silih, cited above, § 195; G.N. and Others v. Italy, no. 43134/05, § 96, 1 December 2009; and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 74, 23 March 2010).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  The Court has held, in relation to the medical sphere, that in case of deaths of patients in care, whether in the public or private sector, the above obligation calls for an effective judicial system which can determine the cause of death and bring those responsible to account (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 192, 9 April 2009).
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 43134/05

  G.N. ET AUTRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  However, that remedy should exist not only in theory; it must operate effectively in practice, within a time-span allowing the case to be examined without unnecessary delay (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 53 in fine; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 105 in fine, 27 June 2006; Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, §§ 83 in fine and 95, ECHR 2008-...; Silih, cited above, § 195; G.N. and Others v. Italy, no. 43134/05, § 96, 1 December 2009; and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 74, 23 March 2010).

• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 47021/10

  ÖZDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from traffic accidents (see, for instance, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 50, 31 July 2012).

  In these circumstances, while the Court acknowledges the shortcomings of the criminal proceedings at issue which led to their discontinuation, it considers in the light of its case-law that Article 2 of the Convention did not necessarily require a criminal-law remedy on the facts and could be satisfied if the applicants had at their disposal an effective civil-law remedy (see, for instance, Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 73, 24 May 2011; Ciechonska, cited above, § 66; and Gençarslan, cited above).

• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  ÖZÜTEMIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from traffic accidents (see, for instance, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 50, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 05.01.2017 - 56995/10

  ÖZ v. TURKEY

  However, if the infringement of the right to life is not intentional, and save for exceptional situations in the above-mentioned cases where negligence went beyond a mere error of judgment or carelessness, Article 2 does not necessarily require such remedies; the State may meet its obligation by affording victims a civil law remedy, either alone or in conjunction with a criminal law one, enabling any responsibility of the individuals concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see, among other authorities, Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 76973/01, 28 November 2006, and Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 73, 24 May 2011).