Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HRISTOZOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE [Extraits]

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Partiellement irrecevable Non-violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2 - Obligations positives) (Volet procédural) Non-violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Traitement dégradant Traitement inhumain) (Volet matériel) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 47039/11
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11, 358/12

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2014, 447

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Neu Zitiert selbst (56)

• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 42290/08

  WIATER v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  The first sentence of Article 2 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see, among other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-I, and Wiater v. Poland (dec.), no. 42290/08, § 33, 15 May 2012).

  The applicants were not calling upon the State to pay for this treatment (contrast, among others, Wiater v. Poland (dec.), no. 42290/08, § 33, 15 May 2010).

• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 50, 15 March 2012).

  39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 54, ECHR 2012-...).

• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 57813/00

  S. H. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  The Court's task in cases arising from individual applications is not to review domestic law in the abstract, but to examine the manner in which that law has been applied to the applicants (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 153, Series A no. 324; Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, § 33, Series A no. 243; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 86, ECHR 2003-VIII; and S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 92, ECHR 2011-...).

  I am not convinced that a comparison between the applicants" situation and those obtaining in the cases of Pretty v. the United Kingdom (no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III), Evans v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007-I), and S.H. and Others v. Austria ([GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011-...) is appropriate for the purposes of analysis of the circumstances in the present case.

 
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  However, in view of the fundamental importance of Article 3, the Court has reserved to itself sufficient flexibility to address its application in other situations (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 50, ECHR 2002-III).

  I am not convinced that a comparison between the applicants" situation and those obtaining in the cases of Pretty v. the United Kingdom (no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III), Evans v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007-I), and S.H. and Others v. Austria ([GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011-...) is appropriate for the purposes of analysis of the circumstances in the present case.

• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 44362/04

  DICKSON CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole (see, among other authorities, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 41, Series A no. 172; Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 75, ECHR 2007-I; and Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-V).

  There is no evidence that when adopting the regulations at issue, or those that succeeded them, the Minister of Health sought to weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of the restriction (see, mutatis mutandis, Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 83 in limine, ECHR 2007-V) by, for instance, carrying out a public consultation process (contrast, mutatis mutandis, Hatton and Others, cited above, § 128).

• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  Whether the refusals unduly interfered with the applicants" right to respect for their physical integrity is a point which the Court will examine below by reference to Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 66, ECHR 2007-I, and L. v. Lithuania, no. 27527/03, § 47, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 39912/98

  DI GIOVINE contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  Lastly, the Court does not have to establish whether the product that the applicants wished to use met the requirements of European Union law, and in particular the requirement of Article 83 § 2 of Regulation (EC) no. 726/2004 to be undergoing clinical trials (see paragraphs 10, 45 and 50 above); the Court is competent only to apply the Convention, and it is not its task to review compliance with other international instruments (see Di Giovine v. Portugal (dec.), no. 39912/98, 31 August 1999; Hermida Paz v. Spain (dec.), no. 4160/02, 28 January 2003; Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 62, ECHR 2004-IV; Calheiros Lopes and Others v. Portugal (dec.), no. 69338/01, 3 June 2004; and Böheim v. Italy (dec.), no. 35666/05, 22 May 2007).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 25579/05

  A, B AND C AGAINST IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  It depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, as a recent authority, A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 164, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  It is by reference to that provision that the Court and the former Commission have most often examined the extent to which States can use compulsory powers to protect people from the consequences of their own conduct, including when that conduct poses a danger to health or is of a life-threatening nature (see, for example, concerning involvement in consensual sado-masochistic activities, Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, 19 February 1997, §§ 35-36, Reports 1997-I, and K.A. and A.D. v. Belgium, no. 42758/98 and 45558/99, §§ 78 and 83, 17 February 2005; concerning imposition of medical treatment without consent, Acmanne and Others v. Belgium, no. 10435/83, Commission decision of 10 December 1984, DR 40, p. 251; Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2004-II; Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, §§ 143-44, ECHR 2005-V; Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, no. 302/02, § 135, ECHR 2010-...; and Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 11373/04, § 41, 2 September 2010; and, concerning assisted suicide, Pretty, cited above, §§ 62-67, and Haas v. Switzerland, no. 31322/07, § 51, ECHR 2011-...).
• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 31871/96

  Rechtssache SOMMERFELD gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  The Court's task in cases arising from individual applications is not to review domestic law in the abstract, but to examine the manner in which that law has been applied to the applicants (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 153, Series A no. 324; Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, § 33, Series A no. 243; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 86, ECHR 2003-VIII; and S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 92, ECHR 2011-...).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 302/02

  JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 27229/95

  KEENAN ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.03.2007 - 19215/04

  GHEORGHE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02

  IORDACHI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 35666/05

  BOHEIM c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06

  SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND
• EKMR, 10.12.1984 - 10435/83

  ACMANNE and others v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 17.02.2005 - 45558/99
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 38157/04

  OGNYAN ASENOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 4160/02

  HERMIDA PAZ contre l'ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 27527/03

  L. v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 65653/01

  NITECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 31322/07

  HAAS c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

  N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 25124/09

  TRZEPALKO v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 12350/04

  WAINWRIGHT c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 02.04.2014 - 18968/07

  V.C. ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA SLOVAQUIE
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 69338/01

  CALHEIROS LOPES ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 26.05.2011 - 27617/04

  R.R. ./. Polen
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA
• EuGH, 08.11.2007 - C-143/06

  Ludwigs-Apotheke - Freier Warenverkehr - Art. 28 EG und 30 EG - Art. 11 und 13 …
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 16403/07

  YANCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

  X c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 24790/04

  FAIRFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EuGH, 18.03.2010 - C-3/09

  Erotic Center - Sechste Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie - Art. 12 Abs. 3 Buchst. a - …
• EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

  SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 31.01.2011 - 29893/06

  IBISH v. BULGARIA
• EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

  ÖHLINGER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 42758/07

  Stanev ./. Bulgarien - /
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02

  THÉVENON c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 36799/05

  KORZHENEVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  KABUROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 58502/11

  ABDYUSHEVA ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Par exemple, au paragraphe 123 de l'arrêt Hristozov et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 47039/11 et 358/12, CEDH 2012 (extraits), elle a dit que la pratique consistant à utiliser un médicament non testé n'était « pas basée sur des principes établis dans le droit des États contractants ".

  Pour commencer, j'estime que les faits de l'espèce ne sont pas comparables à ceux de l'affaire Hristozov et autres (nos 47039/11 et 358/12, CEDH 2012 (extraits)), sur laquelle la Cour fonde sa décision d'irrecevabilité du grief tiré de la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention.

• VG Berlin, 05.12.2016 - 23 K 402.16

  Keine Gruppenverfolgung von Roma in der Republik Moldau

  Danach kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass Handlungen oder Unterlassungen von Behörden in der Gesundheitspolitik unter Umständen die Verantwortlichkeit des Staates nach Art. 2 EMRK auslösen können und dass sich hinsichtlich des Umfangs von positiven Schutzpflichten im Gesundheitswesen eine Frage nach Art. 2 EMRK stellen kann, wenn Behörden das Leben einer Person nachweislich durch Verweigerung einer Behandlung gefährdet haben, die der Bevölkerung allgemein gewährt wird (zum Vorstehenden EGMR, Urteil vom 13. November 2012 - 47039/11, 358/12 - [Hristozov u.a. v. Bulgarien], NJW 2014, 447, Rn. 106 mit zahlreichen weiteren Nachweisen aus der Rechtsprechung des EGMR).
• 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.

 
• LG Mönchengladbach, 03.09.2014 - 32 Ns 18/14

  Vorbereitungshandlung; Versuch; unmittelbares Ansetzen zum Gewahrsamsbruch

  Hierbei können etwa der Grad der Rechtsgutsgefährdung, der aus Sicht des Täters durch die zu beurteilende Handlung bewirkt wird, oder die Dichte des Tatplans Bedeutung gewinnen (vgl. BGH, NStZ 2006, 331; NJW 2014, 447; KG, BeckRS 2013, 00392).
• OLG Dresden, 28.05.2020 - 2 OLG 22 Ss 369/20

  Abgrenzung von Vorbereitung und Versuch beim Diebstahl

  Hierbei können etwa der Grad der Rechtsgutsgefährdung, der aus Sicht des Täters durch die zu beurteilende Handlung bewirkt wird, oder die Dichte des Tatplans Bedeutung gewinnen (vgl. BGH, NStZ 2006, 331; NJW 2014, 447; KG, BeckRS 2013, 00392).
• EGMR, 27.11.2023 - 21881/20

  COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) v. SWITZERLAND

  Dans ce domaine, la Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'affirmer que la marge d'appréciation laissée aux États doit être ample (Hristozov et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 47039/11 et 358/12, §§ 119 et 124, CEDH 2012 (extraits) ; et Vav?™icka et autres, précité, §§ 274 et 280).
• EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 26074/18

  V v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  In the context of healthcare, the States' substantive positive obligations may include a duty to make adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals and to put in place an effective regulatory framework compelling hospitals, whether private or public, to adopt appropriate measures for the protection of patients' lives (see, for example, Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 49; Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, § 108, ECHR 2012 (extracts)); and Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 186, 19 December 2017).
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 23796/10

  VASILEVA v. BULGARIA

  47039/11 and 358/12, § 119, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), and in choosing how to comply with their positive obligations and organise their judicial systems (see paragraph 67 above), there is no basis on which to hold that the Convention requires a special mechanism which facilitates the bringing of medical malpractice claims or a reversal of the burden of proof in such cases, as suggested by the applicant.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 5126/05

  YORDANOVA AND TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  47039/11 and 358/12, 21 February 2012).
• EGMR, 01.03.2018 - 78241/13

  SELAMI AND OTHERS v.

  Furthermore, cases before the Court generally also have a moral or principled dimension and next of kin may have a legitimate interest in obtaining a ruling even after the death of the direct victim (see, mutatis mutandis, Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, § 73, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 62250/19

  JIVAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 53173/10

  HORHAT v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 5049/14

  PITSILADI ET VASILELLIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 44394/15

  G.M. AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 62161/14

  KHOJOYAN AND VARDAZARYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 62804/13

  DURISOTTO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 1928/19

  S.W. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 21648/11

  TRASKUNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 621/14

  L.F. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 25036/16

  MASTERSKIKH c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 4168/10

  ALIKHANYAN AND MELIKSETYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 7001/06

  BABIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 62964/10 (anhängig)

  KURMANAYEVSKIY c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 23716/04

  ASOCIATIA PAS BERE TIMISOREANA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  MAZUKNA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 58400/16

  DIMITAR ANGELOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 1485/11

  ZAMET - BUDOWA MASZYN SPÓLKA AKCYJNA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 1443/19

  DE KOK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 52511/14

  CECCUTI ET DE BARROS E VASCONCELLOS PONTA c. ITALIE