Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LACATUS AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+6, Art. 14+8 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Lacatus and Others v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  41138/98 and 64320/01, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts) and as submitted by the parties in respect of their individual situations, may be summarised as follows.

  41138/98 and 64320/01, 5 July 2005, and Moldovan and Others (no. 2), cited above, opened two separate enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments delivered by the domestic courts.

  41138/98 and 64320/01, 13 March 2001).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  The Court has considered treatment to be "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see, for example, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to that extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of them (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94, and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 22, Series A no. 291-B).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to that extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of them (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94, and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 22, Series A no. 291-B).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  FRETTE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify different treatment (see, for example, Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-IV, and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 34, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  Whatever analytical approach is adopted - positive duty or abstention from interference - the applicable principles regarding justification under Article 8 § 2 are broadly similar (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, §§ 59 and 61, Series A no. 288, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  However, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  The Court also recalls that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case; the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities; and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78028/01

  PINI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 50342/99

  SANGLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 33158/96

  LAINO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.02.2005 - 2577/02

  FOCIAC c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 57808/00

  ALBINA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 11273/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 17369/02

  TOPCIOV c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 37763/04

  CEBOTARI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 33273/03

  CIPROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8229/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 58670/00

  URSU c. ROUMANIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 69546/12

  CEVRIOGLU v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates in this connection that while the execution of a final and binding judicial decision is an essential element of the right to a court and to an effective remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız, cited above, § 152), the State's responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against a private person extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement procedures (see, among other authorities, Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, §§ 117-122, 13 November 2012, and Demir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 34885/06, § 76, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09

  [ENG]

  Given the decisive implications of this argument for the applicant's case, the Court considers that the administrative authorities and the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court were required to give a specific and express response, irrespective of what would be their final conclusion (see Lacatus and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, § 102, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 11212/23

  ÐORÐEVIC v. SERBIA

  41138/98 and 64320/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts); Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, § 83, 13 November 2012; and Jansons v. Latvia, no. 1434/14, § 75, 8 September 2022).

• EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 6142/16

  CALDARAR AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Moreover, it has never been contested that the thirteenth applicant was the eighth applicant's life partner or wife at the time of his death (compare, mutatis mutandis, Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, § 63, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 29430/06

  KRGOVIC v. SERBIA

  Finally, regardless of whether a debtor is private or State-controlled, the State should, as the possessor of public authority, act diligently in order to assist the applicant with the execution of the judgment in question (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005; and Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, § 117, 13 November 2012), which, in this case, the State failed to do.
• EGMR, 10.03.2016 - 41138/98

  MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS (No. 1) AND 2 OTHER CASES AGAINST ROMANIA

  12694/04.
• EGMR, 08.09.2022 - 1434/14

  JANSONS v. LATVIA

  The applicable principles with respect to the assessment of the State's positive and negative obligations are broadly similar, calling for a determination of whether a fair balance has been struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 98, ECHR 2003-VIII; Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, § 84, 13 November 2012; and Burlya and Others v. Ukraine, no. 3289/10, §§ 162 and 169-70, 6 November 2018).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 43569/13

  SEKUL v. CROATIA

  In cases such as the present one, which necessitate actions by a debtor who is a private person, the State, as the possessor of public authority, has to act diligently in order to assist a creditor with the execution of a judgment (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005; and Lacatus and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, § 117, 13 November 2012).
• EGMR - 6919/16 (anhängig)

  MILETIC v. CROATIA

  Did the Constitutional Court, when deciding on the applicant's constitutional complaint, examine the alleged violations of Article 48 § 1, Article 49 § 4 and Article 50 of the Croatian Constitution? If not, was the Constitutional Court's decision of 9 July 2015 sufficiently reasoned, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania, no. 12694/04, § 102, 13 November 2012; Jacimovic v. Croatia, no. 22688/09, § 52, 31 October 2013; and Răchită v. Romania, no. 15987/09, § 57, 17 May 2016)?.