Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=19.07.2012&Aktenzeichen=497%2F09
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 23:13:45
Document Index: 410433001

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 41', '§ 65', '§ 51', '§ 69', '§ 142', '§ 65']

EGMR, 19.07.2012 - V - 497/09 - dejure.org
EGMR, 19.07.2012 - V - 497/09
Mangelnde Prüfung der Klage / des Rechtsmittels des Ehemanns einer sterbewilligen und leidenden Frau, welche die Abgabe einer Droge zur Begehung ihres Selbstmordes beantragt hat (Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und der Familie; aktive Sterbehilfe; Fortsetzungsfeststellungsklage: Feststellungsinteresse; Pentobarbital; Betäubungsmittel; Dignitas)
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 65, ECHR 2002-III; Koch v. Germany, no. 497/09, § 51, 19 July 2012; Arskaya, cited above, § 69; and Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 142, ECHR 2015 (extracts).
The judges further held that the blanket prohibition in section 2(1) of the 1961 Act was compatible with Article 8. As to the argument that even if the blanket prohibition was compatible with Article 8, this did not liberate the Divisional Court from its obligation to carry out a balancing exercise (citing Koch v. Germany, no. 497/09, 19 July 2012), the judges said:.
She alleged a breach of their procedural rights under Article 8, citing Koch v. Germany, no. 497/09, §§ 65-68, 19 July 2012.