Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DODOV c. BULGARIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 2 Non-violation de l'art. 2 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DODOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00
• EGMR, 11.09.2013 - 59548/00

Papierfundstellen

• NJW-RR 2009, 1394

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00

  Where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals and the protection of the lives of patients, it cannot be accepted that matters such as error of judgment on the part of a 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 from the standpoint of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life (Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; see also Nitecki v. Poland, no. 65653/01, dec. 21 March 2002).
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00

  The State duty to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction also extends in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual, or from self-harm (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3159, § 115, and Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 89 and 90, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00

  In the Government's submission, in so far as Article 2 might be applicable in its procedural aspect, the respondent State had fulfilled its duties under that provision, as interpreted by the Court in its case law and, notably, in Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, ECHR 2002-I. In particular, the Bulgarian legal system had made available to the applicant the possibility to seek compensation in civil proceedings.

 
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 65653/01

  NITECKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00

  Where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals and the protection of the lives of patients, it cannot be accepted that matters such as error of judgment on the part of a 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 from the standpoint of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life (Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V; see also Nitecki v. Poland, no. 65653/01, dec. 21 March 2002).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00

  It reiterates that the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention will not be satisfied if the available remedies do not operate effectively within a time-span such that the courts can complete their examination of the merits of each individual case (see; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy, cited above, §§ 51-53 and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  UÇAR v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 59548/00

  In such cases, the Court's task is to determine whether the authorities knew or ought to have known of the existence of a real and immediate risk and, if so, whether they did all that could have been required of them to prevent the life of the individual concerned from being, avoidably, put at risk (see Uçar v. Turkey, no. 52392/99, § 86, 11 April 2006).

• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 5786/08

  Gesetzeslücke: Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Schweden wegen Nacktaufnahmen

  Calvelli et Ciglio c. Italie [GC], no 32967/96, § 51, CEDH 2002-I, Vo c. France [GC], no 53924/00, §§ 90-94, CEDH 2004-VIII, Dodov c. Bulgarie, no 59548/00, § 87, 17 janvier 2008, Branko Tomasic et autres c. Croatie, no 46598/06, § 64, 15 janvier 2009, et Maiorano et autres c. Italie, no 28634/06, § 128, 15 décembre 2009.