Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
REYNOLDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 13+2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 2694/08
- EGMR - 2694/08 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99
POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08
The County Court noted that the High Court in the Savage case had accepted that, where the allegations were of clinical negligence, the measure of the duty owed to both voluntary and involuntary patients was as outlined in Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V) and in R (Takoushis) v. Inner North London Coroner and Another ([2006] 1WLR 46) namely, that there had to be at least gross negligence of a kind sufficient to sustain a charge of manslaughter.It accepted that simple negligence in the care of a patient resulting in his or her death was not sufficient to amount to a breach of the State's obligation under Article 2 to protect life, although the position might be different where gross negligence or manslaughter had been alleged (relying, inter alia, on R (Goodson) v Bedfordshire and Luton Coroner [2004] EWHC 2931 (Admin), itself based on Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V).
The Trust contended before the High Court that the extent of the obligations of health authorities to protect a patient's life was to be found in Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V) namely, that the treatment alleged amounted either to gross negligence or to manslaughter.
The County Court concluded that it was unlikely that any appeal in Savage would render the Trust and Council liable under Article 2 because an allegation of ordinary negligent medical care was insufficient of itself to establish a breach of Article 2 of the Convention (Powell v. the United Kingdom, no. 45305/99, (dec.) 4 May 2000).
- EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99
BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08
In particular, it has considered whether there is an arguable claim of a breach of Article 2 of the Convention and whether civil proceedings for establishing any liability and, if so, awarding non-pecuniary damages were available to the applicant in that respect (Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 123-133, ECHR 2001-III; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 96-102, ECHR 2002-II; and Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 173/176, ECHR 2005-II).The most therefore that could be recovered under the 1934 Act on behalf of the deceased's estate would have been the funeral expenses (as regards the 1976 and 1934 Acts, see the above-cited Keenan judgment, § 129 and Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 172, ECHR 2005-II).
- EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08
In particular, it has considered whether there is an arguable claim of a breach of Article 2 of the Convention and whether civil proceedings for establishing any liability and, if so, awarding non-pecuniary damages were available to the applicant in that respect (Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 123-133, ECHR 2001-III; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 96-102, ECHR 2002-II; and Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 173/176, ECHR 2005-II). - EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08
In particular, it has considered whether there is an arguable claim of a breach of Article 2 of the Convention and whether civil proceedings for establishing any liability and, if so, awarding non-pecuniary damages were available to the applicant in that respect (Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 123-133, ECHR 2001-III; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 96-102, ECHR 2002-II; and Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 173/176, ECHR 2005-II).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 2694/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
REYNOLDS CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
REYNOLDS AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 2694/08
- EGMR - 2694/08 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ...
- EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 44392/19
CHEVALIER c. FRANCE
les pensées ou menaces suicidaires (Trubnikov c. Russie, no 49790/99, §§ 74-76, 5 juillet 2005 et, Reynolds c. Royaume-Uni, no 2694/08, § 10, 13 juin 2012) ; v. les signes de détresse physique ou mentale (Younger, précité).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR - 2694/08 |
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 2694/08
- EGMR - 2694/08 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99
POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR - 2694/08
In the meantime, the High Court decided the case of Savage ν South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust ([2006] EWHC 3562): it accepted the Trust's argument that the extent of the obligations on health authorities to protect a patient's life was to be found in Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V) and rejected the claimant's reliance on Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII).The respondent Trust had applied to the High Court for a question of law to be determined as a preliminary issue: what was the proper test for establishing a breach of Article 2 of the Convention? The Trust contended that the extent of the obligations of health authorities to protect a patient's life in that case was to be found in Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V) and the claimant argued, citing Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII), that a duty to take steps to prevent a particular patient from committing suicide arose if the authorities knew or ought to have known that there was a real and immediate risk of her doing so.
- EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 42577/07
HURST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR - 2694/08
The Court refers to its outline of "relevant domestic law and practice" in the Hirst application (no. 42577/07) and would add the following.