Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TYSIAC v. POLAND
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 8+14 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 8 No separate issue under Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 8+14 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TYSIAC c. POLOGNE
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 8+14 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Non-violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 8 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 13 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 8+14 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - ... - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
- EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03
Papierfundstellen
- FamRZ 2007, 707 (Ls.)
Wird zitiert von ... (63)
- EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 19475/20
Künsberg Sarre ./. Österreich - "von" im Nachnamen durfte nicht gestrichen werden
According to settled case-law, the notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to one of the legitimate aims pursued by the authorities (see, for example, Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 109, ECHR 2007-I, and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 67, Series A no. 130). - EuGH, 18.06.2020 - C-78/18
Die von Ungarn erlassenen Beschränkungen der Finanzierung von Organisationen der …
Es erlegt damit den Behörden eine negative und unbedingte Verpflichtung auf, die nicht durch besondere Vorschriften umgesetzt werden muss; zu ihr kann jedoch eine positive Verpflichtung hinzukommen, rechtliche Maßnahmen zum Schutz des Privat- und Familienlebens zu erlassen (EGMR, 24. Juni 2004, Von Hannover gegen Deutschland, CE:ECHR:2004:0624JUD005932000, § 57, und EGMR, 20. März 2007, Tysiąc gegen Polen, CE:ECHR:2007:0320JUD000541003, §§ 109 und 110). - EGMR, 12.09.2012 - 10593/08
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Recht auf Beschwerde; Verhältnis zwischen …
It reiterates that "private life" is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see, for example, Glor v. Switzerland, no. 13444/04, § 52, ECHR 2009; Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 107, ECHR 2007-I; Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland, no. 55525/00, § 51, 14 February 2008; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom (GC), nos.
- EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08
Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"
The applicable provisions of domestic law are extensively summarised in the judgments of Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, 20 March 2007, and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, 26 May 2011.The Court was of the view that such retrospective measures alone were not sufficient to provide appropriate protection of the personal rights of a pregnant woman in the context of a controversy concerning the determination of access to lawful abortion, and emphasised the vulnerability of the woman's position in such circumstances (see Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 125, ECHR 2007-IV, and R.R. v. Poland, cited above, § 209, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
- EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13
LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL
However, it seems clear that there is no Convention right of access to artificial insemination (Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-V), abortion (Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, ECHR 2007-I; A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, ECHR 2010; and P. and S. v. Poland, no. 57375/08, 30 October 2012), in vitro fertilisation using donated gametes (S.H. v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011), assisted suicide (Pretty, cited above) or medication necessary to suicide (Haas, cited above), and surrogacy arrangements (Mennesson v. France, no. 65192/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). - EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 1298/19
A.P. AND R.P. v. POLAND
According to settled case-law, the notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to one of the legitimate aims pursued by the authorities (see, for example, Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 109, ECHR 2007-I). - EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21
M.L. v. POLAND
However, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant suffered emotional and mental pain, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the facts alleged do not disclose a level of severity falling within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (compare Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 66, ECHR 2007 I, and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 164, ECHR 2010). - EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 40448/06
AYDOGDU c. TURQUIE
Il n'appartient certes pas à la Cour de remettre en cause, en tant que telles, les conclusions de ces expertises en se livrant, à partir des renseignements médicaux dont elle pourrait disposer, à des conjectures sur leur caractère correct d'un point de vue scientifique (voir Altuğ et autres c. Turquie, no 32086/07, § 77, 30 juin 2015 ; voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Tysiąc c. Pologne, no 5410/03, § 119, CEDH 2007-I). - EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 41216/13
PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE
A violation of both Articles 3 and 8 was found in R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and no violation of Article 3, but a violation of Article 8 in Tysiąc v. Poland, no. 5410/03, ECHR 2007-I. - EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 28859/11
DUBSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
It embraces, inter alia, the right to personal autonomy and personal development (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III) and to physical and psychological integrity (see; Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 107, ECHR 2007-I; and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 214, 16 December 2010, Haas v. Switzerland, no. 31322/07, § 50, 20 January 2011). - EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 28859/11
DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02
DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39627/05
TALIADOROU AND STYLIANOU v. CYPRUS
- VG Karlsruhe, 26.09.2019 - A 19 K 3124/17
Flüchtlingsschutz wegen Verschleierungszwang in Afghanistan
- EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 32146/05
EUGENIA LAZAR c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05
KYRIAKIDES v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 25266/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 27294/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 32086/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 4789/10
GÖZÜM v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 1285/03
[FRE]
- EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 36680/11
BIÇAKLI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 81277/12
SAYAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 60108/10
TAMER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25774/09
ÖZTÜRK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 18356/11
Statt Zwillingen nur ein Kind: Türkin wird nach Fehldiagnose entschädigt
- EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 10280/12
LOPEZ GUIO v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 11223/04
X v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 14709/07
MAYBORODA v. UKRAINE
- VG Hamburg, 08.12.2021 - 8 A 5783/19
Irak: Abschiebungsverbot für weibliche Schutzsuchende mit ausgeprägter westlicher …
- EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 22388/07
KAYA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38331/06
ERKAN BIROL KAYA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 26053/07
DOSSI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 67171/17
B.B. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 36105/17
DURAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 29731/09
ÖZOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 52797/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 46227/11
KILIÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 21733/12
CERAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 58194/10
BALCI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 15397/02
KAVAKLIOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 63777/09
R.S. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 46132/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 11385/05
[FRE]
- EGMR - 3639/21 (anhängig)
K.C. v. POLAND and 3 other applications
- EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 1928/19
S.W. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 15819/16
PATRIKU c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 62299/09
AYDINOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 14593/09
ÇETIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 25480/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 24727/12
X c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 53898/07
A. ET A. c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 21320/15
A.M. AND A.K. v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 2788/11
DÖVME c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 64677/12
CINGÖZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 4517/15
ÇAKICI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 47430/06
DEMIRCI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 40791/08
AKAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 36797/10
DINÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 14359/10
ÖNDER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 20442/10
KAYA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 12370/10
AKSOY v. TURKEY
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TYSIAC v. POLAND
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
- EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
Further, the Court in its case-law opposes the right to life to any hypothetical right to terminate life (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III). - EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98
M.C. c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
Effective deterrence against grave attacks on personal integrity (such as rape in the case of M.C.), where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake, require the effective application of criminal-law provisions (M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 124, 148-53, and X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, §§ 23 and 24). - EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
Finally, she points out that under the Court's case-law it is for an applicant to select the legal remedy that is most appropriate in the circumstances of the case (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 23).
- EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
Recently the Court observed that legislative provisions as to when life commences fell within the State's margin of appreciation, but rejected suggestions that the Convention ensured such protection, having observed that the issue of such protection was not resolved within the majority of the Contracting States themselves and that there was no European consensus on the scientific and legal definition of the beginning of life (Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 82, ECHR 2004-...). - EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
In the specific sphere of medical negligence the obligation could for instance also be satisfied if the legal system affords victims a remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the criminal courts, enabling any liability of the doctors concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
This provision of the Convention aims essentially to protect an individual against arbitrary activities of public authorities (Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C, § 31). - EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99
POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
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 can be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V). - EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 5410/03
If there is more than one remedy available, the applicant need not exhaust more than one (YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, §§ 42-44).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".