Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violations of Art. 5-3 Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 Pecuniary damage - reserved Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 41088/05

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 24490/94

  SARLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  The undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1192, § 159; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  The undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1219, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1192, § 159; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 60115/00

  Meinungsfreiheit von Rechtsanwälten bei der öffentlichen Kritik von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  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, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  The Court decided ex officio to examine the problems raised by the applicant under Article 5 § 1, in the light of Baranowski v. Poland, (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III), and to obtain the parties" submissions thereon.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  In this context, "[a]rguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract"" (Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), Sarban v. Moldova, cited above, § 99).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  The Court recalls that under the second limb of Article 5 § 3, 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 his continuing detention (YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  Moreover, the domestic courts "must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release" (Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 35).

• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 17963/08

  SAVCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court must moreover ascertain whether the domestic legislation itself is consistent with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 51, ECHR 2000-III, Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 148, 11 July 2006).

  In particular, I refer to the case of Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006), a case in which the problem under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerned the applicability of the 2001 text of Article 25(4) of the Constitution to detention during the trial stage of the proceedings.

• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 1529/10

  P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Accordingly, while Article 3 cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it imposes an obligation on the State to assure the requisite protection of the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, for example, providing them with appropriate medical assistance (Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 112, 11 July 2006).

  The Court considers that the severity of the applicant's suffering was such as to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (for example, McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, ECHR 2003-Vl; and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006).

• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02

  STOICA v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).

 
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 76672/12

  HOALGA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Toute carence de l'enquête affaiblissant sa capacité à établir les causes du dommage ou l'identité des responsables risque de faire conclure qu'elle ne répond pas à la norme d'effectivité requise (Boicenco c. Moldova, no 41088/05, § 123, 11 juillet 2006).
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court considers that this worrying discrepancy in decision-making practice not only raises general questions related to the principle of legal certainty but also a specific question as to the compatibility of the legal regime governing the applicant's detention and its application in the applicant's case, having regard to the Article 5 § 3 right to release pending trial, with or without conditions (see Caballero v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 21 and 24; S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 39360/98, §§ 22-23, 19 June 2001, Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, §§ 134-138, 11 July 2006 and Krejcír v. the Czech Republic, nos. 39298/04 and 8723/05, § 100, ECHR 2009...).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  AUSTRIANU v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 38906/07

  KARABET AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In any event, the Court is well aware that there are methods of applying force which do not leave any traces on a victim's body (see Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 109, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 45661/99

  CARABULEA v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 22362/06

  CUCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 1573/02

  MEDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  PREDICA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 40549/11

  POEDE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.01.2015 - 15191/12

  KITANOVSKI v.
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07

  NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 46546/12

  MIHAILESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47804/07

  GUTU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 2954/07

  STEFANOU v. GREECE
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 29343/10

  EPISTATU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 2589/02

  CHIOC c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 10919/05

  MIKHALKOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  URSU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 13071/06

  SERENY v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  RADUCANU v. ROMANIA