Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL

  Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestement mal fondé;Non-violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2 - Obligations positives;Article 2-1 - Vie) (Volet matériel);Violation de l'article ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 56080/13
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (35)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  The Government, referring to the Court's case-law (Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 104, 27 June 2006; Eugenia Lazar v. Romania, no. 32146/05, §§ 68-72, 16 February 2010; Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 130, ECHR 2014; and Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V), maintained that in the area of health care the positive obligation arising for the Contracting States under Article 2 of the Convention with a view to preventing death caused by medical negligence was essentially of a procedural nature and involved a duty to put in place a regulatory structure requiring that hospitals, be they private or public, take appropriate steps to ensure that patients" lives were protected.

  In Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, § 1, ECHR 2000-V), the Court held that although a State must make "adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals... [the Court] cannot accept that matters such as error of judgment on the part of health professional or negligent co-ordination among health professionals in the treatment of a particular patient are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account..." Nevertheless, in a very recent case, namely Elena Cojocaru v. Romania (no. 74114/12, §§ 108, 111 and 125, 22 March 2016), the Court took a different stance.

  The Erikson case-law was first confirmed by Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V, and later on by Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-I.

• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  It has also accepted that disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII).

  As pertinently held in the case of Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy ([GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-I), a State "... must take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction..." A State will not only be held to account for the intentional and unlawful taking of life, protected under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention, but will also be held to account for its omissions that result in putting the patient at risk.

  The Erikson case-law was first confirmed by Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V, and later on by Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-I.

• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12

  ELENA COJOCARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  The applicant submitted that, according to the more recent understanding of Article 2 of the Convention (she referred to Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, 17 January 2008; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, ECHR 2013; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013; Asiye Genç v. Turkey, no. 24109/07, 27 January 2015; and Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, 22 March 2016), for the Court to find that there had been a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb, it had to be established that in concrete terms the promptness and diligence which could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances of the case had been lacking and, further, that this failing had contributed to putting the victim's life at risk.

  In Powell v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 45305/99, § 1, ECHR 2000-V), the Court held that although a State must make "adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals... [the Court] cannot accept that matters such as error of judgment on the part of health professional or negligent co-ordination among health professionals in the treatment of a particular patient are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account..." Nevertheless, in a very recent case, namely Elena Cojocaru v. Romania (no. 74114/12, §§ 108, 111 and 125, 22 March 2016), the Court took a different stance.

  Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, 22 March 2016.

 
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 13423/09

  MEHMET SENTÜRK ET BEKIR SENTÜRK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  The applicant submitted that, according to the more recent understanding of Article 2 of the Convention (she referred to Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, 17 January 2008; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, ECHR 2013; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013; Asiye Genç v. Turkey, no. 24109/07, 27 January 2015; and Elena Cojocaru v. Romania, no. 74114/12, 22 March 2016), for the Court to find that there had been a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb, it had to be established that in concrete terms the promptness and diligence which could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances of the case had been lacking and, further, that this failing had contributed to putting the victim's life at risk.

  Also, in Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey (no. 13423/09, § 97, ECHR 2013), the Court found the respondent State liable under Article 2 of the Convention when a woman died after medical staff in a State hospital refused her treatment in an emergency, life-threatening situation because she could not pay a deposit in advance for the operation.

  Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, ECHR 2013.

• EuGH, 30.01.2002 - C-151/01

  La Conqueste / Kommission

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  On 9 June 2009 Council Recommendation on patient safety, including the prevention and control of healthcare associated infections (2009/C 151/01) was adopted.

  Council Recommendation (2009/C 151/01) of 9 June 2009 on patient safety, including the prevention and control of healthcare associated infections.

  European Parliament resolution of 22 October 2013 on the report from the Commission to the Council on the basis of Member States" reports on the implementation of the Council Recommendation (2009/C 151/01) on patient safety, including the prevention and control of healthcare associated infections (2013/2022(INI)).

• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  The Court would emphasise at the outset that different considerations arise in certain other contexts, in particular with regard to the medical treatment of persons deprived of their liberty or of particularly vulnerable persons under the care of the State, where the State has direct responsibility for the welfare of these individuals (see, for example, Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts), and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, §§ 143-44).

  Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts).

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  The Government, referring to the Court's case-law (Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 104, 27 June 2006; Eugenia Lazar v. Romania, no. 32146/05, §§ 68-72, 16 February 2010; Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 130, ECHR 2014; and Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V), maintained that in the area of health care the positive obligation arising for the Contracting States under Article 2 of the Convention with a view to preventing death caused by medical negligence was essentially of a procedural nature and involved a duty to put in place a regulatory structure requiring that hospitals, be they private or public, take appropriate steps to ensure that patients" lives were protected.

  Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 130, ECHR 2014.

• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 15509/12

  KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  In Karpylenko v. Ukraine (no. 15509/12, § 81, 11 February 2016), the Court held as follows with regard to how it is established whether or not the respondent State has complied with its obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention:.

  Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, § 112, 10 February 2004; Dzieciak v. Poland, no. 77766/01, § 91, 9 December 2008; and Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, § 79, 11 February 2016.

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  It has also accepted that disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII).

  Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 89, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 130, ECHR 2014.

• EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  Thus, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016).

  Mirilashivili v. Russia (dec.), no. 6293/04, 10 July 2007, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 137, ECHR 2016.

• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 32146/05

  EUGENIA LAZAR c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 47095/09

  MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 31322/07

  HAAS c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 497/09

  Mangelnde Prüfung der Klage / des Rechtsmittels des Ehemanns einer sterbewilligen …
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 40448/06

  AYDOGDU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

  N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 73175/10

  Hungerstreikende Gefangene: Zwangsernährung und Patientenrechte
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.05.2011 - 27617/04

  R.R. ./. Polen
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  OYAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03

  RIVIERE c. FRANCE
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 45076/05

  ARSKAYA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 49859/99

  REZGUI contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 24109/07

  ASIYE GENÇ c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15

  BORISLAV TONCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Not only do they feature in the same provision, but they are set out in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see, among other authorities, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 130, 19 December 2017; Savickis and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 49270/11, § 131, 9 June 2022; and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 13237/17

  Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

  The Court reiterates that it is master of the characterisation to be given to the facts of the case (see, for example, Sarigül v. Turkey, no. 28691/05, § 33, 23 May 2017, and Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 145, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 6232/20

  SAAKASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The Court reiterates that the primary purpose of the six-month rule is to maintain legal certainty by ensuring that cases raising issues under the Convention are examined within a reasonable time, and to prevent the authorities and other persons concerned from being kept in a state of uncertainty for a long period of time (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 129, 19 December 2017).

 
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  AHMET HÜSREV ALTAN v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that it is master of the characterisation to be given to the facts of the case (see, for example, Sarigül v. Turkey, no. 28691/05, § 33, 23 May 2017, and Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 145, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 49969/14

  PINTAR AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  As regards the Government's objection concerning the applicants" compliance with the six-month time-limit, the Court notes that this question is closely interrelated to that of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 130, 19 December 2017), which is why they were both joined to the merits in the present case (see paragraph 79 above).
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 34591/19

  TOPLAK AND MRAK v. SLOVENIA

  Even though these proceedings proved to be incapable of offering any redress, in view of the Supreme Court's position (see paragraphs 14 and 22 above), it has not been demonstrated by the Government that they could be regarded as constituting inappropriate or misconceived avenues which could be considered as bound to fail from the outset and hence should not be taken into account for the calculation of the six-month period (see, for example, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 138, 19 December 2017; also contrast Musayeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 74239/01, 1 June 2006, and Rezgui v. France (dec.), no. 49859/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 43190/10

  PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC NOTARY ORGANISATION 'ETICA' v. ROMANIA

  The Court considers that the preliminary objection raised by the Government is so closely linked to the substance of the applicant organisation's complaint that it must be joined to the merits (see, for example, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 142, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 67748/13

  MELIKIDIS v. CYPRUS

  The Court refers to its established case-law pertaining to the requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period, which are closely intertwined (see, inter alia, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 129-132 and 134-136, 19 December 2017 and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 258-269, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).