Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,69999
EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,69999)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.11.2006 - 30649/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,69999)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. November 2006 - 30649/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,69999)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,69999) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (105)Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    This and the fact that the applicant's detention was ordered by an investigating judge and not a prosecutor distinguished the case from Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III.

    See, for instance, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III.

  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    The Court recalls that although Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005).

    In the case of Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005) the Court found violations of Article 3, Article 5 § 3 in respect of insufficient reasons for the applicant's detention, and Article 5 § 4. The award made was EUR 4, 000. In the case of Becciev v. Moldova (no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005) the same violations were found and the same amount of compensation was awarded.

  • EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

    NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    The Court recalls that Article 6 does not require a person charged with a criminal offence to co-operate actively with the judicial authorities (see, for example, the Dobbertin v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-D, p. 117, § 43) and that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his or her interests (see, mutatis mutandis, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

    BECCIEV v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    In the case of Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005) the Court found violations of Article 3, Article 5 § 3 in respect of insufficient reasons for the applicant's detention, and Article 5 § 4. The award made was EUR 4, 000. In the case of Becciev v. Moldova (no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005) the same violations were found and the same amount of compensation was awarded.
  • EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 13089/87

    DOBBERTIN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    The Court recalls that Article 6 does not require a person charged with a criminal offence to co-operate actively with the judicial authorities (see, for example, the Dobbertin v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-D, p. 117, § 43) and that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his or her interests (see, mutatis mutandis, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    The Court recalls that an individual is not required to try more than one avenue of redress when there are several available (see, for example, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12, § 23).
  • EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    As regards the complaint about the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence, the Court recalls that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention requires, inter alia, that when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused (see, among other authorities, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 77).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    The Court reiterates 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 criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of 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, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

    FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
    The Court has to determine whether the applicant needed regular medical assistance, whether he was deprived of it, as he claims, and, if so, whether this amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (cf. Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 53, 2 December 2004).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

    BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

    LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

    Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 116.
  • EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 28749/18

    Osman Kavala

    La Cour rappelle que, dans d'autres affaires où elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention au regard de certaines périodes de détention provisoire, elle a considéré qu'il ne s'imposait plus de statuer séparément sur le fond des griefs relatifs à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention qui portaient sur ces mêmes périodes (voir, dans le même sens, Holomiov c. Moldova, no 30649/05, § 131, 7 novembre 2006 ; voir, mutatis mutandis, Zervudacki c. France, no 73947/01, §§ 60-61, 27 juillet 2006, et Lütfiye Zengin et autres c. Turquie, no 36443/06, § 92, 14 avril 2015).
  • EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

    BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA

    The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 116).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht