Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOTOYAN v. ARMENIA

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BOTOYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  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).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  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).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 75725/01

  TROCELLIER v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  It is now well established that although the right to health is not as such among the rights guaranteed under the Convention or its Protocols (see Fiorenza v. Italy (dec.), no. 44393/98, 28 November 2000; Pastorino and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 17640/02, 11 July 2006; and Dossi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 26053/07, 12 October 2010), the High Contracting Parties have, parallel to their positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, a positive obligation under Article 8, firstly, to have in place regulations compelling both public and private hospitals to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of their patients' physical integrity and, secondly, to provide victims of medical negligence with access to proceedings in which they can, where appropriate, obtain compensation for damage (see Trocellier v. France (dec.), no. 75725/01, ECHR 2006-XIV; Codarcea v. Romania, no. 31675/04, §§ 102 and 103, 2 June 2009; Spyra and Kranczkowski v. Poland, no. 19764/07, §§ 82 and 86-87, 25 September 2012; Csoma v. Romania, no. 8759/05, §§ 41 and 43, 15 January 2013; and S.B. v. Romania, no. 24453/04, §§ 65-66, 23 September 2014).

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10

  VASILEVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  It should further be borne in mind that in discharging their positive obligations towards the alleged victims of medical malpractice, the authorities must also have regard to counter-considerations, such as the risk of unjustifiably exposing medical practitioners to liability, which can compromise their professional morale and induce them to practise, often to the detriment of their patients, what has come to be known as "defensive medicine" (see Vasileva v. Bulgaria, no. 23796/10, § 70, 17 March 2016, and Jurica v. Croatia, no. 30376/13, § 89, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 54969/09

  ULUSOY v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  However, if deemed effective, such proceedings would by themselves be capable of satisfying the procedural obligation of Article 8 (see Mehmet Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey, no. 54969/09, § 92, 25 June 2019, with further references, and, mutatis mutandis, and albeit in the context of defamation proceedings examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Petrella v. Italy, no. 24340/07, § 53, 18 March 2021).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 30376/13

  JURICA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  It should further be borne in mind that in discharging their positive obligations towards the alleged victims of medical malpractice, the authorities must also have regard to counter-considerations, such as the risk of unjustifiably exposing medical practitioners to liability, which can compromise their professional morale and induce them to practise, often to the detriment of their patients, what has come to be known as "defensive medicine" (see Vasileva v. Bulgaria, no. 23796/10, § 70, 17 March 2016, and Jurica v. Croatia, no. 30376/13, § 89, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 58240/08

  SARISHVILI-BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  In determining whether the State has fulfilled its positive procedural obligation to set up an effective independent judicial system, the Court will examine whether the available legal remedies, taken together, as provided for in law and applied in practice, secured the effective legal means capable of establishing the relevant facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim (see Sarishvili-Bolkvadze v. Georgia, no. 58240/08, § 79, 19 July 2018).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 24340/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  However, if deemed effective, such proceedings would by themselves be capable of satisfying the procedural obligation of Article 8 (see Mehmet Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey, no. 54969/09, § 92, 25 June 2019, with further references, and, mutatis mutandis, and albeit in the context of defamation proceedings examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, Petrella v. Italy, no. 24340/07, § 53, 18 March 2021).
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 76774/01

  POCKAJEVS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  The Court notes here that, except in cases of manifest arbitrariness or error, it is not its function to call into question findings of fact made by the domestic authorities, particularly when it comes to scientific expert assessments, which by definition call for specific and detailed knowledge of the subject (see Pockajevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 76774/01, 21 October 2004).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 71506/13

  DUMPE v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5766/17

  This requires establishing, firstly, whether the civil-law remedy was effective in theory and in practice at the relevant time; that is to say that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success and, secondly, whether it would pursue essentially the same objective as the criminal-law remedy, that is to say, whether the civil-law remedy would add any essential elements that were unavailable through the use of the criminal-law remedy (see Dumpe v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71506/13, § 61, 16 October 2018).
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 27524/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 19764/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 26053/07

  DOSSI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2001 - 44393/98

  FIORENZA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 12370/10

  AKSOY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 17640/02

  PASTORINO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 63789/13

  SCRIPNIC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.07.2017 - C-42/17

  M.A.S. und M.B. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Schutz der finanziellen …

  {FN:38} Vgl. den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Rates über die Errichtung der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft vom 17. Juli 2013 (COM[2013] 534 final) und den Entwurf einer Verordnung über die Errichtung der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft vom 31. Januar 2017 (Dokument 5766/17).

  {FN:41} Vgl. Grünbuch zum strafrechtlichen Schutz der finanziellen Interessen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften und zur Schaffung einer Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft der Kommission vom 11. Dezember 2001 (COM[2001] 715 final); Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat, den Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und den Ausschuss der Regionen vom 26. Mai 2011 über den Schutz der finanziellen Interessen der Europäischen Union durch strafrechtliche Vorschriften und verwaltungsrechtliche Untersuchungen, Gesamtkonzept zum Schutz von Steuergeldern (COM[2011] 293 final); SFI-Richtlinienvorschlag; Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat, den Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und den Ausschuss der Regionen vom 17. Juli 2013, Besserer Schutz der finanziellen Interessen der Union, Errichtung der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft und Reform von Eurojust (COM[2013] 532 final); Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat und die nationalen Parlamente vom 27. November 2013 über die Überprüfung des Vorschlags für eine Verordnung des Rates über die Errichtung der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft in Bezug auf den Subsidiaritätsgrundsatz gemäß Protokoll Nr. 2 (COM[2013] 851 final) (Punkt 2.3); Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Rates vom 17. Juli 2013 über die Errichtung der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft (COM[2013] 534 final) (…vgl. insbesondere das Finanzblatt, Punkt 1.5, S. 55) sowie Entwurf einer Verordnung vom 31. Januar 2017 über die Errichtung einer Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft (Dokument 5766/17); und schließlich Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament gemäß Artikel 294 Absatz 6 AEUV betreffend den Standpunkt des Rates in erster Lesung im Hinblick auf den Erlass einer Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 16. Mai 2017 über die strafrechtliche Bekämpfung von gegen die finanziellen Interessen der Europäischen Union gerichtetem Betrug (COM[2017] 246 final) (Ziffer 3).

• EGMR, 29.10.2024 - 53081/14

  KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

  As a result, the Civil Code was supplemented by the new Articles 162.1 and 1087.2, which regulate the procedure for claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the State for the violation of certain rights guaranteed by the Armenian Constitution and the Convention (a complete summary of the domestic law provisions in question is provided in Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 52 and 57-58, 8 February 2022).

  Rn. 67 The applicable general principles concerning the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention in the context of healthcare have been summarised in Lopes de Sousa Fernandes (cited above, §§ 214-21; see also, in the context of the procedural obligation under Article 8 of the Convention, Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 90-95, 8 February 2022).

  We note that the Court has previously found that there were no effective civil-law or administrative-law (disciplinary) remedies available in the Armenian legal system in respect of complaints of medical negligence (see Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 116-31, 8 February 2022).

• EGMR, 15.10.2026 - 50141/20

  OSTROLUTSKYY v. UKRAINE

  The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine the applicant's complaints from the standpoint of the procedural limb of Article 8 of the Convention only (see Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 90-92, 8 February 2022).

• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 47358/20

  C. v. ROMANIA

  In this regard, the Court reiterates that, if deemed effective, criminal-law remedies would by themselves be capable of satisfying the procedural obligation of Article 8 (see Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, § 109 in fine, 8 February 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.01.2025 - 51448/15

  PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  In a previous case, however, the Court noted that in accordance with the relevant domestic judicial practice, the domestic courts required that a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage for a violation of a Convention right be based on a decision of the prosecuting authority or on a court ruling obtained in another set of judicial proceedings (see, in particular, Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, § 121, 8 February 2022).
• EGMR, 12.12.2024 - 11829/16

  KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA

  In particular, although Article 17 of the Civil Code has been amended by the legislative amendments which entered into force on 1 November 2014, to include non-pecuniary damage as a type of civil damage (see paragraphs 56 and 60 above), it is clear from Article 17 § 4, Article 162.1 and Article 1087.2 of the same Code (see paragraphs 56 in fine, 57 and 59 above) that the possibility of claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage is strictly limited to claims against the State for an established violation by State or local governance bodies or their officials of a fundamental right guaranteed under the Convention (see Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 119-21, 8 February 2022).
• EGMR, 18.06.2024 - 58737/14

  A.P. v. ARMENIA

  As a result, the Civil Code was supplemented by new provisions - Articles 162.1 and 1087.2 (for a full description of the relevant provisions, see Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 52 and 57, 8 February 2022), which regulate the procedure for claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the State for a violation of certain rights that are guaranteed by the Armenian Constitution and the Convention.
• EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 14709/07

  MAYBORODA v. UKRAINE

  In the present case, the Court notes that the patients' right to informed consent to medical interventions was guaranteed by Section 43 of the FHPL (see paragraph 31 above; compare Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, § 104, 8 February 2022; see also the International legal instruments cited in paragraphs 32-36 above for comparison).
• EGMR, 05.03.2026 - 43898/19

  GAZIN v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 14 The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), will examine the applicant's complaints from the standpoint of the procedural limb of Article 8 of the Convention only (see Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 90-92, 8 February 2022).
• EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 30182/17

  BLAGOVESHCHENSKA v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

  The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), will examine the application from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention (see Botoyan v. Armenia, no. 5766/17, §§ 90-92, 8 February 2022), which imposes positive obligations on States with regard to the protection of health, including an obligation to provide victims of medical negligence with access to proceedings in which they could, where appropriate, obtain compensation for damage (see, for instance, Vasileva v. Bulgaria, no. 23796/10, § 63, 17 March 2016, and Jurica v. Croatia, no. 30376/13, § 84, 2 May 2017).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 21648/11

  TRASKUNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 17105/25 (anhängig)

  LOBJHANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 37789/20 (anhängig)

  DARABAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR - 31195/22 (anhängig)

  GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 12105/13

  STEPANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2024 - 12431/22

  VESELÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC