Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOBROVITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment) (Russia);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty ...

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  Each of the applicants (except for Mrs Galina Samatova in application no. 8064/11) was detained by the authorities of the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic" (the "MRT" - see for more details Ilascu 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).

  The Court notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012 and in Mozer (cited above, §§ 81-95).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  At the same time, it is only in exceptional circumstances that physical ill-treatment by State agents which does not result in death may disclose a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 51, ECHR 2004-XI).

 
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  Once this burden has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact used, 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 this requirement (see, inter alia, Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  However, such a remedy is required only for complaints that can be regarded as "arguable" under the Convention (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 78, ECHR 2012, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014, and Mozer, cited above, § 207).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  For practical reasons this judgment will continue to refer to Mr Boltenco as the "applicant" although his wife is today to be regarded as having that status (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI, and Brosset-Triboulet and Others v. France [GC], no. 34078/02, § 58, 29 March 2010).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  RELEVANT MATERIALS 6. The relevant materials have been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  The concept of a "continuing situation" refers to a state of affairs which operates by continuous activities by or on the part of the State to render the applicant a victim (Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO AND HALABUDENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Within the particular context of the Transnistrian region, the Court has examined so far only restrictions on travel outside the region imposed by acts undertaken by the de facto "MRT agents" (see Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], nos. 41660/10 and 5 others, § 94, 3 September 2019, and Golub v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 48020/12, 30 November 2021).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  GOLUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  41660/10 and 5 others, § 94, 3 September 2019).