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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,54107
EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,54107)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.07.2006 - 41088/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,54107)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Juli 2006 - 41088/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,54107)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,54107) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violations of Art. 5-3 Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 Pecuniary damage - reserved Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (40)Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

    ORHAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    The undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1192, § 159; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

    Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Amihalachioaie v. Moldova, no. 60115/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-...).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    The Court recalls that under the second limb of Article 5 § 3, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his continuing detention (YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    Moreover, the domestic courts "must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release" (Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 35).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    In this context, "[a]rguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract"" (Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), Sarban v. Moldova, cited above, § 99).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

    BECCIEV v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    The applicant also argued that the circumstances of the present case in respect of the reasons for remand were identical to those of Sarban (cited above) and Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005, where the Court had found a violation of Article 5 § 3.
  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 24490/94

    SARLI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    The undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1192, § 159; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    The Court decided ex officio to examine the problems raised by the applicant under Article 5 § 1, in the light of Baranowski v. Poland, (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III), and to obtain the parties" submissions thereon.
  • EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

    FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
    The Court has to determine whether the applicant needed regular medical assistance, whether he had been 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, 05.10.2004 - 46430/99

    BARBU ANGHELESCU c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 07.08.1996 - 19092/91

    YAGIZ c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02

    STOICA v. ROMANIA

    The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed 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, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 17963/08

    [ENG]

    The Court must moreover ascertain whether the domestic legislation itself is consistent with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 51, ECHR 2000-III, Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 148, 11 July 2006).

    In particular, I refer to the case of Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006), a case in which the problem under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerned the applicability of the 2001 text of Article 25(4) of the Constitution to detention during the trial stage of the proceedings.

  • EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10

    [ENG]

    Accordingly, while Article 3 cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it imposes an obligation on the State to assure the requisite protection of the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, for example, providing them with appropriate medical assistance (Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 112, 11 July 2006).

    The Court considers that the severity of the applicant's suffering was such as to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (for example, McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, ECHR 2003-Vl; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006).

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