Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);No violation of Article 6 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  Reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of 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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2, and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 200, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  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, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).

• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  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, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2, and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 200, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  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, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  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.

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

  Specifically, in respect of the first applicant, they contacted the de facto authorities, and turned to the Russian Federation's authorities as well as recurrently to numerous international organisations and bilateral foreign partners, raising the first applicant's situation and seeking related assistance (compare with Ivanţoc and Others, cited above, § 109; Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, § 42, 30 May 2017; Mozer, cited above, § 153; Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 53, 30 August 2016; Ilaşcu and Others, cited above, § 347, last sentence).

  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 - 40836/15 (anhängig)

  ILCENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Was the first applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, 30 May 2017)?.

  Has there been a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, notably on account of the alleged unlawful searches (Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, 30 May 2017)?.

• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 7529/10

  CANTER AND MAGALEAS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court recalls that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the case of Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017).

  In the absence of any new and pertinent information proving the contrary, the Court considers that the conclusion reached in Mozer is valid in the present case too and that the "MRT" courts could not qualify as a "tribunal established by law" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see 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).

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Similar objections were raised and dismissed in the cases of Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121), Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017), and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  DOBROVITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  It considers, by implication, that the "MRT" courts could not qualify as an "independent tribunal established by law" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017).
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 33519/15

  URUSBIEV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of the Court's case-law: a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the unlawful conviction of an individual by the "MRT courts" (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 119-32); a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with regard to an unlawful home search and the seizure of personal belongings (see Vardanean v. Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, §§ 50-57, 30 May 2017); a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the surveillance of communications with a lawyer (see Alimpiev v. Republic of Moldova and Russia, [Committee], no. 48802/08, §§ 58-62, 27 April 2021); a violation of Article 8 with regard to the impossibility of returning home (see Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 252-61, ECHR 2015, and, mutatis mutandis, Cravcişin v. the Republic of Moldovan and Russia [Committee], no. 43176/13, §§ 43-47, 28 September 2021); a violation of Article 10 of the Convention with regard to restrictions on journalists' right to freedom of expression (see Coliban v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 5216/13, §§ 63-68, 30 November 2021); a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with other provisions as listed in the appended table with regard to the absence of effective domestic remedies in the "MRT" (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 207-18); and a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention with regard to entry bans issued by "MRT" authorities (see Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 41660/10 and 5 others, §§ 90-99, 3 September 2019).
• EGMR, 19.02.2026 - 49508/15

  ZUBCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 32 Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that those complaints also disclose the following violations of the Convention in the light of the its case-law: a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to criminal convictions by the "MRT courts" (see Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017); a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention with regard to entry bans issued by the "MRT" authorities (see Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 41660/10 and 5 others, §§ 90-99, 3 September 2019); and a violation of Article 13 of the Convention with regard to the absence of domestic remedies (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, § 156).
• EGMR, 21.05.2026 - 63750/17

  V.I. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court has already found in the past that "MRT law" cannot constitute a legal basis for interferences with rights and freedoms under the Convention (see Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, §§ 38 and 55-56, 30 May 2017, in respect of the complaint raised under Article 8, and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 128-29, in respect of the complaints raised under Articles 5 and 6).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 48145/10

  CILEI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  In the first applicant's case, the Russian Government argued that the Court's findings made in Mozer (cited above) and Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017) were based on the findings in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above), which in turn were based on a report written in 1994 by two persons at the request of the OSCE.
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  GOLUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 28349/11

  YESIL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 48108/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 2201/19 (anhängig)

  DRIUCENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 18 other applications
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 74433/11

  ASLANIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 76892/14

  SCERBININA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 28857/14

  RÎBAC AND RODINA-AGRO S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 7845/06

  MÎRCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 36545/06

  OPREA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06

  GRAMA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  BOBEICO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 59220/18 (anhängig)

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

  SOBCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR - 558/16 (anhängig)

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

  DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 33583/14

  DROVORUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA