Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  Apart from the concern for the respect of the rights inherent in Article 2 of the Convention in each individual case, more general considerations, such as the safety of users of health services, also call for a prompt examination of cases concerning medical negligence (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, for example, Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, §§ 49-51; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2002-II; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 117, 27 June 2006 or Silih v. Slovenia [GC] referred to above, §§ 192-196).

  "As the Court has held on several occasions, the procedural obligation of Article 2 requires the States to set up an effective independent judicial system so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, can be determined and those responsible made accountable (see, among other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 49, and Powell v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V).".

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  Apart from the concern for the respect of the rights inherent in Article 2 of the Convention in each individual case, more general considerations, such as the safety of users of health services, also call for a prompt examination of cases concerning medical negligence (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, for example, Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, §§ 49-51; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 71-72, ECHR 2002-II; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 117, 27 June 2006 or Silih v. Slovenia [GC] referred to above, §§ 192-196).

• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  In these circumstances the Court considers that it must also take into account the stage reached in the proceedings in issue at the time of Ms I. Dvorácková's death (see also, mutatis mutandis, Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 53, Series A no. 56; YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A; Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 59, 15 October 1999).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  In these circumstances the Court considers that it must also take into account the stage reached in the proceedings in issue at the time of Ms I. Dvorácková's death (see also, mutatis mutandis, Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 53, Series A no. 56; YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A; Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 59, 15 October 1999).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and to ensure the accountability of those responsible (Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 110, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 23788/06

  BECOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  In view of the above conclusion, the Court finds that the applicants were not required, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, to resort again to the remedy under Article 127 of the Constitution (see Becová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 23788/06, 18 September 2007) as far as their complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the subsequent duration of the proceedings before the District Court is concerned.
• EGMR, 15.10.1999 - 26614/95

  HUMEN c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  In these circumstances the Court considers that it must also take into account the stage reached in the proceedings in issue at the time of Ms I. Dvorácková's death (see also, mutatis mutandis, Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 53, Series A no. 56; YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A; Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 59, 15 October 1999).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 77690/01

  SOLAROVA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  This fact has to be taken into account when determining the merits of the application and, if appropriate, the applicants" claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Solárová and Others v. Slovakia, no. 77690/01, § 42, 5 December 2006, and Judt v. Slovakia, no. 70985/01, § 61, 9 October 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 70985/01

  JUDT v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  This fact has to be taken into account when determining the merits of the application and, if appropriate, the applicants" claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Solárová and Others v. Slovakia, no. 77690/01, § 42, 5 December 2006, and Judt v. Slovakia, no. 70985/01, § 61, 9 October 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
• EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

  AZINAS c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 24790/04

  FAIRFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03

  HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 5977/03

  MAKRI ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 77688/01

  LUBINA v. SLOVAKIA
• RG, 05.04.1902 - 65/02

  Zum Begriffe der "Anstalten" im Sinne des Art. 3 des Gesetzes, betr. einige …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  [ENG]

  In line with the above, while identification and punishment of those responsible for a death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 66-67), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities" part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 211, 9 April 2009; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 50-51, 3 November 2011).

  However, up to now the Court has found a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 only where the investigation was not only long and ineffective, but also, as a consequence of the length and of the lack of diligence, the perpetrator could either not be identified or his or her responsibility could not be proven, so that ultimately the victim was deprived of any redress (see Anna Todorova, cited above; Silih, cited above; and Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, 28 July 2009, which became final on 28 October 2009).

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 68453/13

  PAJIC v. CROATIA

  9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007; and Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 54, 28 July 2009).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 10904/05

  [ENG]

  In line with the above, while the identification and punishment of those responsible for a death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 66-67), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation has largely been based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih v. Slovenia [GC], cited above, § 211; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; and Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 50-51, 3 November 2011).

• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 50375/07

  VAZAGASHVILI AND SHANAVA v. GEORGIA

  The Court reiterates that justice delayed is often justice denied (compare Lopatin and Medvedskiy v. Ukraine, nos. 2278/03 and 6222/03, § 75, 20 May 2010), as the existence of unreasonable periods of inactivity and a lack of diligence on the authorities' part in conducting the proceedings renders the investigation ineffective irrespective of its final outcome (compare Šilih, cited above, § 211; Merkulova, cited above, §§ 52-62; Şandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 73 and 77-80, 8 December 2009; Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Agache and Others v. Romania, no. 2712/02, §§ 79-84, 20 October 2009; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, §§ 57-58, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 2015/02

  JAKUB ET 109 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE

  30754/04.
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 47384/11

  IMREN v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court has found on many occasions that the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome, may lead to the finding of a procedural violation under Article 2 (see, for example, Šilih, cited above, § 211; Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 50-51, 3 November 2011; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 52, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 25732/05

  [ENG]

  In another case involving medical negligence, Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia (no. 30754/04, 28 July 2009), a failure to respect the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition in dealing with the case also led to a finding of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 04.12.2025 - 38342/23

  JAKLOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Indeed, in a number of cases before the Court concerning the implementation of a domestic regulatory framework for the protection of patients' lives, the finding of a violation was largely based on the unreasonable delays and the lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in conducting the proceedings (see, for example, Dodov, cited above, § 98; Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; and Bajić, cited above, § 107).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6978/08

  [FRE]

  Le Gouvernement estime que la somme demandée par le requérant est excessive et renvoie à la jurisprudence de la Cour dans des affaires similaires à ses yeux (Maiorano et autres c. Italie, no 28634/06, § 251, 15 décembre 2009 ; Trufin c. Roumanie, no 3990/04, § 57, 20 octobre 2009 ; Dvorácek et Dvorácková c. Slovaquie, no 30754/04, § 100, 28 juillet 2009 ; Esat Bayram c. Turquie, no 75535/01, § 60, 26 mai 2009, et Sandru c. Roumanie, no 22465/03, § 89, 8 décembre 2009).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 62870/13

  BILBIJA AND BLAZEVIC v. CROATIA

  Accordingly, in a number of cases before the Court concerning the implementation of a domestic regulatory framework for the protection of patients' lives, the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Dodov, cited above, § 98; Šilih, cited above, §§ 202-211; Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Bajić, cited above, § 107; and Kudra, cited above, § 120).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 13904/07

  KUDRA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 35802/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 38359/13

  DZINIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 40394/10

  SAKVARELIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 1349/12

  L.G.R. AND A.P.R. v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 40525/05

  NIKOLAY VOLKOGONOV AND IGOR VOLKOGONOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 41108/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 22465/03

  SANDRU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  FERGEC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  SARBYANOVA AND PASHALIYSKA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 18593/19

  PLECHLO v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 22035/10

  TEKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 12300/12

  KESZELI v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 26874/08

  LAZAROVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 74550/12

  KUCEJOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 51474/13

  KAMI?ƒSKA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 16857/11

  ANDRÁSIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA