Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OYAL v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 07.11.2002 - 53749/00

  LAZZARINI et GHIACCI contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  Disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 51; Lazarini and Giacci v. Italy (dec.), no. 53749/00, 7 November 2002; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; and G.N. and Others, cited above, § 82).

  It must also operate effectively in practice, which requires a prompt examination of the case without unnecessary delay (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 53; Lazzarini and Ghiacci v. Italy (dec.), no. 53749/00, 7 November 2002; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 117, 27 June 2006; and G.N. and Others, cited above, § 97).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  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; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 32, Series A no. 234-C; Vallée v. France, 26 April 1994, § 34, Series A no. 289-A; Karakaya v. France, 26 August 1994, § 30, Series A no. 289-B; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 61, Reports 1998-II; Richard v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, § 64, Reports 1998-III; and Henra v. France, 29 April 1998, § 61, Reports 1998-II).
• EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

  X c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  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; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 32, Series A no. 234-C; Vallée v. France, 26 April 1994, § 34, Series A no. 289-A; Karakaya v. France, 26 August 1994, § 30, Series A no. 289-B; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 61, Reports 1998-II; Richard v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, § 64, Reports 1998-III; and Henra v. France, 29 April 1998, § 61, Reports 1998-II).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  They also require an effective independent judicial system to be set up 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 authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I, and Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 2 does not solely concern deaths resulting from the use of unjustified force by agents of the State but also, in the first sentence of its first paragraph, lays down a positive obligation on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction (see, for example, L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports 1998-III, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  Disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 51; Lazarini and Giacci v. Italy (dec.), no. 53749/00, 7 November 2002; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; and G.N. and Others, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  Furthermore, on a number of occasions the Court has examined complaints raised under Article 2 of the Convention where the victims had suffered serious injuries as a result of illegal acts perpetrated against them and has accepted that the aforementioned provision could apply in exceptional circumstances even if the victims had not died (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII; Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 51, ECHR 2004-XI; and G.N. and Others v. Italy, no. 43134/05, § 69, 1 December 2009).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  They also require an effective independent judicial system to be set up 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 authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I, and Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V).

• EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  Konstantin Markin ./. Russland

  [4] This right has been based on Article 8 (Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, §§ 74-83, ECHR 2004-II; Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, §§ 107-108, ECHR 2007-I; and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 245, ECHR 2010) or on Article 2 (Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 72, 23 March 2010).

  [17] See Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, p. 34, § 10, Series A no. 6 ("certain legal inequalities tend only to correct factual inequalities"), Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, §§ 51 and 66, ECHR 2006-VI, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 175, 181-182, ECHR 2007-IV, Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 147-148, 182, ECHR 2010, Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, § 48, 17 February 2011, and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, 23 March 2010.

  In exceptional cases, an obligation of result may be imposed on the State for an indefinite period of time (Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, 23 March 2010).

• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  In the particular context of health care the Court has interpreted the substantive positive obligation of the State as requiring the latter to make regulations compelling hospitals, whether private or public, to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of patients" lives (see, among many other authorities, Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 54, 23 March 2010, and Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 140, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 13423/09

  MEHMET SENTÜRK ET BEKIR SENTÜRK c. TURQUIE

  Se référant au constat de la Cour dans l'affaire Oyal c. Turquie (no 4864/05, §§ 53-51, 23 mars 2010), les requérants rappellent que l'Etat a l'obligation d'assurer les traitements médicaux nécessaires car il gère et/ou contrôle le système de protection de la santé.

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11

  BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  47039/11 and 358/12, ECHR 2012 (extracts), concerning applicants suffering from different types of terminal cancer; Karchen and Others v. France ((dec.), no. 5722/04, 4 March 2008) and Oyal v. Turkey (no. 4864/05, 23 March 2010), in which the applicants had been infected with the HIV virus, which endangered their life; Nitecki v. Poland ((dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002), in which the applicant suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Gheorghe v. Romania ((dec.), no. 19215/04, 22 September 2005), in which the applicant suffered from haemophilia; and De Santis and Olanda v. Italy ((dec.), 35887/11, 9 July 2013) in which the applicant - who was severely disabled - suffered a cerebral haemorrhage as a consequence of an infection acquired in hospital.
• EGMR, 08.09.2022 - 3153/16

  DRELON c. FRANCE

  Au demeurant, la Cour rappelle que les obligations positives découlant de l'article 2 de la Convention impliquent la mise en place d'un cadre réglementaire imposant aux hôpitaux l'adoption de mesures propres à assurer la protection de la vie de leurs malades (G.N. et autres c. Italie, no 43134/05, §§ 80, 85-95, 1er décembre 2009, 0yal c. Turquie, no 4864/05, §§ 53-54, 23 mars 2010, et Karchen et autres c. France (déc.), no 5722/04, 4 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35887/11

  DE SANTIS ET OLANDA c. ITALIE

  Se référant à l'affaire Oyal c. Turquie, (no 4864/05, 23 mars 2010), ils demandent à la Cour de condamner l'État italien à fournir une couverture médicale complète et gratuite à la troisième requérante pour le restant de sa vie.

  La Cour a estimé applicable l'article 2 dans une affaire (Oyal c. Turquie, no 4864/05, 23 mars 2010), où un adolescent avait été contaminé par le virus VIH lors de transfusions sanguines après sa naissance.

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 54969/09

  MEHMET ULUSOY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  En pareils cas, la Cour considère généralement qu'il convient d'examiner les événements litigieux sous l'angle du volet procédural, en recherchant si les mécanismes existants permettaient de faire la lumière sur le cours des circonstances factuelles et ainsi de soumettre celles-ci à un contrôle public (voir, par exemple, Trzepalko c. Pologne (déc.), no 25124/09, § 24, 13 septembre 2011, Oyal c. Turquie, no 4864/05, § 54, 23 mars 2010, Eugenia Lazar c. Roumanie, no 32146/05, §§ 69 et 70, 16 février 2010, Rinkuniene c. Lituanie (déc.), no 55779/08, 1er décembre 2009, Zafer Öztürk c. Turquie, no 25774/09, § 46, 21 juillet 2015, et Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, précité, § 172), l'enjeu étant souvent de vérifier si l'impossibilité pour elle d'aboutir à des constatations de fait définitives sous l'angle du volet matériel n'est pas résultée de l'absence d'une réaction adéquate des autorités judiciaires (Aydogdu, précité, § 102).
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 58255/08

  AKDEMIR ET EVIN c. TURQUIE

  Comme elle l'a énoncé dans sa jurisprudence concernant la négligence médicale, la Cour ne saurait admettre qu'une procédure engagée à des fins d'indemnisation puisse durer aussi longtemps en droit interne (Süleyman Ege, précité, § 59, Kudra c. Croatie, no 13904/07, § 120, 18 décembre 2012, et Oyal c. Turquie, no 4864/05, §§ 74-76, 23 mars 2010).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 2429/13

  SARI c. TURQUIE

  Aussi, la Cour doit-elle réexaminer les événements litigieux ainsi que les éléments de preuve disponibles (voir, entre autres, Kavaklioglu et autres c. Turquie, no 15397/02, § 176, 6 octobre 2015), en recherchant si les mécanismes existants permettaient de faire la lumière sur le cours des circonstances factuelles et ainsi de soumettre celles-ci à un contrôle public (voir, par exemple, Rink?«niene c. Lituanie (déc.), no 55779/08, 1er décembre 2009, Eugenia Lazar c. Roumanie, no 32146/05, §§ 69 et 70, 16 février 2010, Oyal c. Turquie, no 4864/05, § 54, 23 mars 2010, Trzepalko c. Pologne (déc.), no 25124/09, § 24, 13 septembre 2011, Zafer Öztürk c. Turquie, no 25774/09, § 46, 21 juillet 2015, et Lopes de Sousa Fernandes c. Portugal [GC], no 56080/13, § 172, 19 décembre 2017), l'enjeu étant de vérifier si l'impossibilité pour elle d'aboutir à des constatations de fait définitives sous l'angle du volet matériel (paragraphe 55 ci-dessus) ne soit pas le résultat de l'absence d'une réaction adéquate des autorités judiciaires face au décès de Sultan Sari (voir, par exemple, Aydogdu c. Turquie, no 40448/06, § 102, 30 août 2016, et Mehmet Ulusoy et autres c. Turquie, no 54969/09, § 86, 25 juin 2019).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL

  It reiterates that in circumstances such as those in the present case, a prompt response by the authorities is essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II, and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, §§ 74-76, 23 March 2010), and also to allow the dissemination of information and thereby prevent the repetition of similar errors and contribute to the safety of the users of health services (see Byrzykowski, cited above, § 117).
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 72781/12

  YIRDEM ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 45721/09

  SÜLEYMAN EGE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25774/09

  ZAFER ÖZTÜRK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 61772/12

  TÜLAY YILDIZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  IGOR SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 13706/08

  AKSENOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 55303/12

  KANAL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 43185/11

  ELVAN ALKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 25435/06

  BELENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 36680/11

  BIÇAKLI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 42714/13

  SCORTE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 12647/11

  UYAR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  ANNA TODOROVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 16000/16

  NEDELCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 35523/06

  ISAYEVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 28009/10

  BILINMIS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  MINDROVA v. UKRAINE