Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  Reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice from the Republic of Moldova and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).

  My vote in the present case was based on my previous dissenting opinion in the case of Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on the issue of the Russian Federation's effective control over Transdniestria.

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII) and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see, inter alia, Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014; and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, §§ 83-89, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  The Court reiterates that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see Mozer, cited above, § 178; Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, ECHR 2016; and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 159, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  The concept of a "continuing situation" refers to a state of affairs which operates by continuous activities by or on the part of the State to render the applicant a victim (Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government express the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above), Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law.
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 15868/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  Nonetheless, in view of the significant gap of more than one year between the two periods of detention with which the complaint is concerned (from January to July 2005, and from August 2006 to April 2012), the Court cannot treat them as a part of a continuing situation (see Haritonov v. Moldova, no. 15868/07, § 26, 5 July 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14

  EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen

  With reference to the analysis in paragraphs 425 to 427 above, the Court considers that the de facto Abkhaz courts could not qualify as a 'tribunal established by law' for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare, among many cases, Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017, and Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 57, 30 May 2017; also contrast Protopapa v. Turkey, no. 16084/90, § 84, 24 February 2009).
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  With reference to the analysis in paragraphs 425 to 427 above, the Court considers that the de facto Abkhaz courts could not qualify as a "tribunal established by law" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare, among many cases, Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017, and Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 57, 30 May 2017; also contrast Protopapa v. Turkey, no. 16084/90, § 84, 24 February 2009).
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 110 Moreover, the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prisons in which the applicant was detained in the "MRT" have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 76957/01, § 37, 17 October 2017; Eriomenco, cited above, § 57; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; and Draci, cited above, § 58).

• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  DOBROVITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Finally, the Court notes that the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prisons in which the applicants have been detained in the "MRT" have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia; no. 76957/01, § 37, 17 October 2017; Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 57, 9 May 2017; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 58, 17 October 2017).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 56618/08

  BERZAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner les conditions matérielles de détention en « RMT'(voir, parmi d'autres, Mozer, précité, §§ 180-182, Eriomenco c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 42224/11, §§ 55-56, 9 mai 2017, et Apcov c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 13463/07, § 42, 30 mai 2017) et a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 48145/10

  CILEI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  The Court has already had the occasion to examine the conditions of detention in the "MRT" (see among others, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180-182; Eriomenco, cited above, §§ 55-56; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 42, 30 May 2017) and concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 55698/14

  BABCHIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner les conditions matérielles de détention en « RMT'(voir, parmi d'autres, Mozer, précité, §§ 180-182, Eriomenco c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 42224/11, §§ 55-56, 9 mai 2017, et Apcov c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 13463/07, § 42, 30 mai 2017) et a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 48108/07

  [ENG]

  It finally observes that the conditions of detention prevailing in the various "MRT" prisons have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 57, 9 May 2017; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 58, 17 October 2017 and Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia; no. 76957/01, § 37, 17 October 2017).
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  [ENG]

  Finally, the Court notes that the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prisons in which the applicants have been detained in the "MRT" have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia; no. 76957/01, § 37, 17 October 2017; Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 57, 9 May 2017; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 58, 17 October 2017).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  COLIBAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court has already had the occasion to examine the conditions of detention in the "MRT" (see among others, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180-182; Eriomenco, cited above, §§ 55-56; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 42, 30 May 2017) and concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  CRAVCISIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND OTHERS
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 76892/14

  SCERBININA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 48802/08

  ALIMPIEV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 48841/11

  FILIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 767/12

  SHAPOVAL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 80882/13

  UNTILOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 7529/10

  CANTER AND MAGALEAS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 3060/07

  SOBCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 33842/10

  DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 3445/13

  NEGRUTA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA