Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SENTGES v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  Referring to the Court's case-law (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32; X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B; Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III), he argued that the concept of private life, as interpreted by the Court, encompassed notions pertaining to the quality of life, including personal autonomy, self-determination, as well as the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  ZEHNALOVÁ ET ZEHNAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  It is incumbent on the individual concerned to demonstrate the existence of a special link between the situation complained of and the particular needs of his or her private life (see Zehnalovà and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  Referring to the Court's case-law (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32; X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B; Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III), he argued that the concept of private life, as interpreted by the Court, encompassed notions pertaining to the quality of life, including personal autonomy, self-determination, as well as the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  Referring to the Court's case-law (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32; X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B; Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III), he argued that the concept of private life, as interpreted by the Court, encompassed notions pertaining to the quality of life, including personal autonomy, self-determination, as well as the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  Referring to the Court's case-law (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32; X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91; Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B; Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B; Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III), he argued that the concept of private life, as interpreted by the Court, encompassed notions pertaining to the quality of life, including personal autonomy, self-determination, as well as the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings.

• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE

  De plus, si la Convention ne garantit pas en tant que tel le droit à un niveau particulier de soins médicaux, la Cour a dit précédemment que la vie privée recouvre l'intégrité physique et morale de la personne et que l'Etat a également l'obligation positive de reconnaître à ses ressortissants le droit au respect effectif de cette intégrité (Glass c. Royaume-Uni, no 61827/00, §§ 74-83, CEDH 2004-II, Sentges c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 27677/02, 8 juillet 2003, Pentiacova et autres c. Moldova (déc.), no 14462/03, CEDH 2005-I, Nitecki c. Pologne (déc.), no 65653/01, 21 mars 2002, Odièvre c. France [GC], no 42326/98, CEDH 2003-III, mutatis mutandis).
• EGMR, 16.07.2014 - 37359/09

  HÄMÄLÄINEN c. FINLANDE

  La Cour a dit dans des affaires antérieures que l'article 8 impose aux États l'obligation positive de garantir à leurs citoyens le droit à un respect effectif de leur intégrité physique et morale (voir, par exemple, Nitecki c. Pologne (déc.), no 65653/01, 21 mars 2002, Sentges c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 27677/02, 8 juillet 2003, Odièvre c. France [GC], no 42326/98, § 42, CEDH 2003-III, Glass c. Royaume-Uni, no 61827/00, §§ 74-83, CEDH 2004-II, et Pentiacova et autres c. Moldova (déc.), no 14462/03, CEDH 2005-I).
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"

  The Court has previously found States to be under a positive obligation to secure to their citizens the right to effective respect for their physical and psychological integrity (see, among many other authorities, Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, §§ 74-83, ECHR 2004-II; Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003; Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-...; Carlo Dossi and others v. Italy, (dec.), no. 26053/07, 12 October 2010; Yardımcı v. Turkey, no. 25266/05, 5 January 2010 ; §§ 55-56; Gecekusu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28870/05, 25 May 2010).

 
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 4241/12

  McDONALD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In this regard, the Government noted that the Court has repeatedly held that while States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in striking a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, this margin is even wider where the issues involve an assessment of priorities in the context of the allocation of limited State resources (see, for example, Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003, Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I, Molka v. Poland (dec.), no. 56550/00, 11 April 2006).

  In a number of cases the Court has held that Article 8 was relevant to complaints about public funding to facilitate the mobility and quality of life of disabled applicants (see, for example, Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V and Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003).

• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 23065/12

  ENVER SAHIN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour admet que, pour ce qui est notamment d'offrir aux personnes handicapées un accès adéquat aux établissements d'enseignement, les autorités nationales jouissent d'une marge et qu'elles sont les mieux placées pour apprécier cette marge en fonction des fonds disponibles (voir, mutatis mutandis, O'Reilly et autres c. Irlande (déc.), no 54725/00, 28 février 2002, Sentges c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 27677/02, 8 juillet 2003, Mólka, décision précitée, et Ponomaryoponovi, précité, § 56).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  The Court once again reiterates in this connection that it is a fundamental principle that the protection machinery established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights, and this is especially true with regard to claims which, as in the present case, relate to matters of economic and social policy entailing public expenditure; States have limited resources, and the national authorities are, in principle, better placed than an international court to determine how they are to be allocated, taking into account local needs and conditions (see, mutatis mutandis, Mólka v. Poland (dec.), no. 56550/00, ECHR 2006-IV, and Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003).
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 53162/21

  DIACONEASA v. ROMANIA

  The Court has previously considered a number of cases concerning funding for care and medical treatment to fall within the sphere of possible positive obligations when the applicants complained in substance not of action but of a lack of action by the respondent State (see, for example, Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003, and Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 56550/00

  MÓLKA v. POLAND

  The Court notes that in a number of cases it has held that Article 8 is relevant to complaints about public funding to facilitate the mobility and quality of life of disabled applicants (see Marzari v. Italy (dec.), no. 36448/9, 4 May 1999; Maggiolini v. Italy, (dec.), no. 35800/97, 13 January 2000; Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003; and Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 62250/19

  JIVAN v. ROMANIA

  The Court has previously considered a number of cases concerning funding for care and medical treatment as falling within the sphere of possible positive obligations because the applicants complained in substance not of action but of a lack of action by the respondent States (see, for example, Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003, and Pentiacova and Others, cited above).
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 7269/05

  Erhoben von F. H. gegen Rumänien und Deutschland

  Der Gerichtshof weist darauf hin, dass Artikel 8 in Betracht kommt, da es sich um Rügen betreffend die öffentliche Finanzierung handelt, die die Mobilität und Lebensqualität behinderter Beschwerdeführer fördern soll ( Marzari ./. Italien (Entsch.), Nr. 36448/97, 4. Mai 1999, Zehnalová und Zehnal ./. Tschechische Republik (Entsch.), Nr. 38621/97, CEDH 2002-V und Sentges ./. Niederlande (Entsch.), Nr. 27677/02, 8. Juli 2003).
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 62804/13

  DURISOTTO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 25036/16

  MASTERSKIKH c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 35427/15

  ORUÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 60228/00

  ZAFER v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 21320/15

  A.M. AND A.K. v. HUNGARY