Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BECCIEV v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 9190/03
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  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).

  The persistence of the reasonable suspicion is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-53, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  The competent court thus has to examine not only compliance with the procedural requirements set out in domestic law but also the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention (see Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  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, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  According to the Court's case-law, it follows from the wording of Article 6 - and particularly from the autonomous meaning to be given to the notion of "criminal charge" - that this provision has some application to pre-trial proceedings (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 36).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  The expectation of heavy sentence and the weight of evidence may be relevant but is not as such decisive and the possibility of obtaining guarantees may have to be used to offset any risk (Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 10).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  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 the continued detention (YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05

  A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Moreover, in remand cases, since the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the accused person has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, the detainee must be given an opportunity effectively to challenge the basis of the allegations against him (Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, §§ 68-72, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle a pu ainsi observer une série de problèmes récurrents au sujet des prisons de ce pays, dont la surpopulation, le manque d'hygiène et de conditions matérielles appropriées, la mauvaise qualité et la quantité insuffisante de la nourriture, et l'absence de soins médicaux adéquats (voir, parmi d'autres, Becciev c. Moldova, no 9190/03, §§ 41-48, 4 octobre 2005, Holomiov, précité, §§ 113-122, Istratii, précité, §§ 48-59 et 68-72, Modarca, précité, §§ 63-69, Ciorap c. Moldova, no 12066/02, §§ 65-71, 19 juin 2007, Popovici c. Moldova, nos 289/04 et 41194/04, §§ 56-57, 27 novembre 2007, Turcan c. Moldova, no 10809/06, §§ 35-39, 27 novembre 2007, Malai c. Moldova, no 7101/06, §§ 33-35, 13 novembre 2008, Valeriu et Nicolae Rosca c. Moldova, no 41704/02, §§ 78-79, 20 octobre 2009, Gavrilovici c. Moldova, no 25464/05, §§ 42-44, 15 décembre 2009, I.D., précité, §§ 44-46, Oprea c. Moldova, no 38055/06, §§ 39-42, 21 décembre 2010, Rotaru c. Moldova, no 51216/06, §§ 33-42, 15 février 2011, Feraru c. Moldova, no 55792/08, §§ 41-46, 24 janvier 2012, Hadji c. Moldova, nos 32844/07 et 41378/07, §§ 19-20, 14 février 2012, Constantin Modarca c. République de Moldova, no 37829/08, §§ 25-27, 13 novembre 2012, Ciorap c. République de Moldova (no 3), no 32896/07, §§ 35-37, 4 décembre 2012, Mitrofan, précité, §§ 37-41, Ipati, précité, §§ 64-65 ; et Segheti, §§ 30-33).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  Moreover, in remand cases, since the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the accused person has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, the detainee must be given an opportunity effectively to challenge the basis of the allegations against him (see Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, §§ 68-72, 4 October 2005).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 34382/07

  TRIPADUS c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Il mettait, entre autres, en exergue le fait que le tribunal de Buiucani avait rendu son jugement du 28 août 2007 à 17 heures alors que le délai précédent de la détention provisoire du requérant avait expiré à 11 h 59. Invoquant la jurisprudence de la Cour (Boicenco c. Moldova, no 41088/05, 11 juillet 2006, Sarban c. Moldova, no 3456/05, 4 octobre 2005, et Becciev c. Moldova, no 9190/03, 4 octobre 2005), l'avocat argüait également que le tribunal de Buiucani n'avait pas justifié le maintien du requérant en détention par des motifs pertinents et suffisants.
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07

  NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Il indique que la présente affaire est identique aux affaires Sarban (précité, §§ 93-104), Becciev c. Moldova (no 9190/03, §§ 49-64, 4 octobre 2005), Boicenco c. Moldova (no 41088/05, §§ 139-145, 11 juillet 2006) et Musuc (précité, §§ 35-48), dans lesquelles la Cour aurait conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47804/07

  GUTU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la République de Moldova, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation de l'article 5 §§ 1, 3 et 4 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Sarban c. Moldova, no 3456/05, §§ 95-104, 4 octobre 2005 ; Becciev c. Moldova, no 9190/03, §§ 53-64, 4 octobre 2005 ; Boicenco c. Moldova, no 41088/05, §§ 139-145, 148-154, 11 juillet 2006 ; Gutu c. Moldova, no 20289/02, §§ 58-62, 7 juin 2007, et Musuc c. Moldova, no 42440/06, §§ 37-47, 49-57, 6 novembre 2007).
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7101/06

  MALAI v. MOLDOVA

  The Government proposed paying him EUR 2, 000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and argued that this amount would constitute sufficient just satisfaction in the present case, bearing in mind the intensity and duration of the applicant's suffering, the fact that the applicant's health had not been affected as a result of it and the Court's case-law in such cases as Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005) and Becciev v. Moldova (no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 25451/08

  TOPA v. MOLDOVA

  The Court is not convinced by the applicant's arguments and notes that some of the awards made by the Supreme Court of Justice in the cases referred to by the applicant are comparable to those made by the Court in cases concerning Article 5 § 3. In particular, it recalls that in Castravet v. Moldova (no. 23393/05, 13 March 2007) the applicant was awarded by the Court EUR 2, 500 for a breach of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4, while in Becciev v. Moldova (no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005) and in Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005) the applicants were awarded EUR 4, 000 for breaches of Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 3 and 4.