Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STRAISTEANU AND AGACHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 10764/09

  Keine Bedenken gegen Dashcam-Videos vor Gericht?

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  Whilst in most cases the right to control such use involves the possibility for an individual to refuse publication of his or her image, it also covers the individual's right to object to the recording, conservation and reproduction of the image by another person (see Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, § 40, 15 January 2009, De La Flor Cabrera v. Spain, no. 10764/09, § 31, 27 May 2014, and López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  The Court further reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law" as used in the second paragraph of Article 8 requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 228-230, ECHR 2015, with further references, and Tortladze v. Georgia, no. 42371/08, § 50, 18 March 2021).
• EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 32200/96

  HERBECQ ET l'ASSOCIATION " LIGUE DES DROITS DE l'HOMME" contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  As to the monitoring of an individual's actions using photographic or video devices, the Convention institutions have taken the view that the monitoring of the actions and movements of an individual in a public place using a camera which did not record visual data does not constitute in itself a form of interference with private life (see Herbecq and the Association "Ligue des Droits de l'Homme" v. Belgium, nos. 32200/96 and 32201/96, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, Decisions and Reports 92-B, p. 92, and Perry, cited above, § 41).

 
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  The Court further reiterates that the expression "in accordance with the law" as used in the second paragraph of Article 8 requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 228-230, ECHR 2015, with further references, and Tortladze v. Georgia, no. 42371/08, § 50, 18 March 2021).
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 42973/05

  BISIR AND TULUS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  It points out that in a similar case it has already found that, under this law, it was open to the applicants to claim compensation for the alleged unlawful searches of their homes (Bisir and Tulus v. Moldova, no. 42973/05, § 37, 17 May 2011).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 8927/02

  SHAROMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  The Court points out that, following annulment of a conviction or termination of the proceedings against an applicant, he or she can no longer be considered a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a breach of his or her right to a fair trial in connection with these proceedings (see Sharomov v. Russia, no. 8927/02, § 36, 15 January 2009, G. v. France, no. 27244/09, § 46, 23 February 2012, and Hacer Arican v. Turkey (dec.) no. 24461/09, § 20, 2 July 2019).
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 24461/09

  ARIKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  The Court points out that, following annulment of a conviction or termination of the proceedings against an applicant, he or she can no longer be considered a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a breach of his or her right to a fair trial in connection with these proceedings (see Sharomov v. Russia, no. 8927/02, § 36, 15 January 2009, G. v. France, no. 27244/09, § 46, 23 February 2012, and Hacer Arican v. Turkey (dec.) no. 24461/09, § 20, 2 July 2019).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that in cases of credible allegations of treatment proscribed under Article 3 of the Convention, it is incumbent on the authorities to open a criminal case and conduct an investigation, a pre-investigation inquiry alone not being capable of meeting the requirements of effective investigation under Article 3. The mere fact of the investigative authority's refusal to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of serious ill-treatment in police custody is indicative of the State's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014 and Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, § 60, 5 February 2015).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 57519/09

  RAZZAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that in cases of credible allegations of treatment proscribed under Article 3 of the Convention, it is incumbent on the authorities to open a criminal case and conduct an investigation, a pre-investigation inquiry alone not being capable of meeting the requirements of effective investigation under Article 3. The mere fact of the investigative authority's refusal to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of serious ill-treatment in police custody is indicative of the State's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014 and Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, § 60, 5 February 2015).
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  CANTARAGIU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (see, for instance, Gäfgen, cited above, §§ 116 and 119, Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 103, 5 July 2016, and Cantaragiu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13013/11, § 48, 24 March 2020).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02

  IORDACHI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27244/09

  G. v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 679/13

  VERETCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA