Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,68078
EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06 (https://dejure.org/2007,68078)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.11.2007 - 8207/06 (https://dejure.org/2007,68078)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. November 2007 - 8207/06 (https://dejure.org/2007,68078)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,68078) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06
    While the Court was not presented with sufficient evidence that the applicant had indeed been intimidated in his cell, it considers that the State did not fulfil its positive obligation of properly investigating allegations of ill-treatment, given all the above-mentioned circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 126, ECHR 2003-V; Corsacov v. Moldova, no. 18944/02, § 68, 4 April 2006, and also paragraph 30 of the 2001 CPT report, cited in paragraph 39 above).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06
    The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law on Article 3 of the Convention regarding, in particular, conditions of detention and medical assistance to detainees (see, amongst others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, §§ 76-79, 13 September 2005, and Sarban, cited above, §§ 75-77).
  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

    POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06
    While the Court was not presented with sufficient evidence that the applicant had indeed been intimidated in his cell, it considers that the State did not fulfil its positive obligation of properly investigating allegations of ill-treatment, given all the above-mentioned circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 126, ECHR 2003-V; Corsacov v. Moldova, no. 18944/02, § 68, 4 April 2006, and also paragraph 30 of the 2001 CPT report, cited in paragraph 39 above).
  • EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

    OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06
    The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law on Article 3 of the Convention regarding, in particular, conditions of detention and medical assistance to detainees (see, amongst others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, §§ 76-79, 13 September 2005, and Sarban, cited above, §§ 75-77).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

    FENECH v. MALTA

    Thus, in the absence of any contrary allegation, it cannot be said that the applicant suffered hunger or thirst (compare and contrast KadiÄ·is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006; Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; and Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, § 141, 24 March 2016) nor that the deprivation of any other products over limited periods can be considered as a deprivation of the applicant's vital needs.
  • EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 25285/15

    KARACA c. TÜRKIYE

    Ainsi, si les autorités ne mènent pas une enquête réelle sur les faits fondamentaux d'une affaire pour vérifier le bien-fondé d'un grief, alors il y a violation de l'article 5 § 1 c) de la Convention (Stepuleac c. Moldova, no 8207/06, § 73, 6 novembre 2007, et Elçi et autres c. Turquie, nos 23145/93 et 25091/94, § 674, 13 novembre 2003).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 28796/04

    BIVOLARU c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour considère que ces données factuelles s'analysaient en éléments de preuve propres à persuader un observateur neutre et objectif, au stade de l'instruction préliminaire de l'affaire, que le requérant peut passer pour avoir été arrêté et détenu sur la base de « raisons plausibles'de le soupçonner d'avoir commis une infraction pénale, au sens de l'article 5 § 1 c) de la Convention (voir, a contrario, Stepuleac c. Moldova, no 8207/06, §§ 70-73, 6 novembre 2007, et Musuc c. Moldova, no 42440/06, § 32, 6 novembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

    SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    La Cour rappelle s'être penchée à de multiples reprises sur la question de savoir si les voies de recours internes garantissaient une réparation effective des violations de la Convention résultant des mauvaises conditions de détention en République de Moldova (Sarban c. Moldova, no 3456/05, §§ 57-62, 4 octobre 2005, Holomiov c. Moldova, no 30649/05, §§ 101-107, 7 novembre 2006, Istratii et autres c. Moldova, nos 8721/05, 8705/05 et 8742/05, § 38, 27 mars 2007, Modarca c. Moldova, no 14437/05, § 47, 10 mai 2007, Stepuleac c. Moldova, no 8207/06, § 46, 6 novembre 2007, Mitrofan c. République de Moldova, no 50054/07, §§ 32 et 33, 15 janvier 2013, et Segheti, précité, § 22).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

    DARVAS v. HUNGARY

    Having regard to its findings below (see paragraphs 26 to 29), the Court considers it unnecessary, in the circumstances of the present case, to address the issues potentially raised by the rather stereotypical reasoning of the orders confirming the applicant's detention in this period (cf. Mansur v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 55, Series A no. 319-B) together with the alleged lack of consideration of his individual circumstances (cf. Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) and of an in-depth analysis of the evidence against him (cf. Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 68, 6 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02

    STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Permission to take one's own food cannot be a substitute for appropriate catering arrangements because it remains the State's obligation to ensure the well-being of persons deprived of their liberty (see Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; KadiÄ is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006; compare Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 109, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13755/03

    CORNEA c. ROUMANIE

    Dès lors, le parquet a fondé sa décision sur des preuves suffisantes qui pouvaient persuader un observateur neutre et objectif que l'individu en cause aurait pu accomplir l'infraction (voir a contrario Stepuleac c. Moldova, no 8207/06, §§ 70-73, 6 novembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

    SALMANOV v. RUSSIA

    Permission to take one's own food cannot be a substitute for appropriate catering arrangements because it remains the State's obligation to ensure the well-being of persons deprived of their liberty (see Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; KadiÄ is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006; cf.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht