Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATASARU AND SAVITCHI v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38281/08

  The Court notes that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38281/08

  The Court notes that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38281/08

  Such an obligation cannot be considered in principle to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see, mutatis mutandis, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, ECHR 2002-I, and M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 151).

• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14

  Erfasst Art. 4 EMRK auch die Zwangsprostitution?

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the opening of investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-03, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 28.05.2015 - 41107/10

  Y. v. SLOVENIA

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the opening of investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-103, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18944/02

  CORSACOV AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 18 OTHER CASES

  38281/08.

 
• EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 24125/06

  W. v. SLOVENIA

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the time taken to open investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, nos. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-103, 26 July 2007, and P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, § 66, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 49669/07

  P.M. v. BULGARIA

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the opening of investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-103, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  VASÎLCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In this case, the applicant had a strong and legitimate interest in the conduct of the investigation which would have been served by granting her the special status under the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 21 above; see also Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007 and Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, § 90, 2 November 2010 concerning the procedural shortcomings where no proper criminal investigation is initiated).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 3400/07

  M.A. v. SLOVENIA

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the time taken to open investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, nos. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-103, 26 July 2007, and P.M. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  N.D. v. SLOVENIA

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the time taken to open investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, nos. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-103, 26 July 2007, and P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, § 66, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 67576/10

  PIETRIS S.A. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Bien que la situation de la requérante soit distincte de celle de la requête Galuschin précitée, la Cour ne perçoit pas de différence entre les deux procédures invoquées en ce qui concerne la demande de satisfaction équitable, et elle réitère sa position selon laquelle la voie de recours interne susmentionnée doit en principe être utilisée par les intéressés (voir Daniel - P S.A. c. République de Moldova (déc.), no 32846/07, 20 mars 2012 et mutatis mutandis Matasaru et Savitchi c. République Moldova, no 38281/08, § 72, 2 novembre 2010).
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 4936/12

  TOMAC c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle rappelle avoir déjà eu l'occasion de constater que, dans le droit moldave, aucune mesure d'investigation ne pouvait être effectuée avant l'ouverture formelle d'une enquête pénale (Gutu c. Moldova, no 20289/02, § 61, 7 juin 2007, et Matasaru et Savitchi c. Moldova, no 38281/08, § 90, 2 novembre 2010).
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 69564/10

  VEH c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 25620/06

  ARABADJI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 54791/10

  POVESTCA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA