Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOLDOVAN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE (N° 2) [Extraits]

  Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (accès à un tribunal) Violation de l'art. 6-1 (durée de la procédure) Violation de l'art. 14+6 Violation de l'art. 14+8 Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (No. 2)

  Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 6-1 (access to court) Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings) Violation of Art. 14+6 Violation of Art. 14+8 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.03.2001 - 41138/98
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 41138/98
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 41138/98
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98, 64320/01
• EGMR, 10.03.2016 - 41138/98

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  It has deemed treatment to be "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see, for example, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  In both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 98, ECHR 2003-VIII; Rees v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 15, § 37, and Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 25, § 59).
• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  In both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 98, ECHR 2003-VIII; Rees v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 15, § 37, and Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 25, § 59).

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  Whatever analytical approach is adopted - positive duty or interference - the applicable principles regarding justification under Article 8 § 2 are broadly similar (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  Furthermore, even in relation to the positive obligations flowing from Article 8 § 1, in striking the required balance, the aims mentioned in Article 8 § 2 may be of relevance (see Rees, cited above, loc. cit.; see also Lopez Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 54, § 51).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  The Court considers that the above findings are not affected by the conclusions reached in the judgment of 24 February 2004 of the Târgu-Mures Court of Appeal, which became final on 25 February 2005, since the Court notes that the said judgment neither acknowledged nor afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 846, § 36, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  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, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  However, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  The obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 149-50, ECHR 2004-...; A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2699, § 22; Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V, and E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78

  CORIGLIANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 41138/98

  They relied on a considerable body of case law of the Court, including the cases of Torri v. Italy (judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), Corigliano v. Italy (judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 57), Bunkate v. the Netherlands (judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 248-B), and De Micheli v. Italy (judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-D).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  FRETTE v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.07.2007 - C-275/06

  Promusicae - Informationsgesellschaft - Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte - …

  62 - Urteil des EGMR vom 12. Juli 2005 (Beschwerden 41138/98 und 64320/01, §§ 118 f.).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 27804/05

  Rechtssache B. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Das Gebot des Zugangs zu einem Gericht muss nicht nur im Gesetz, sondern auch in der Praxis verankert sein, ansonsten fehlt ihm die erforderliche Zugänglichkeit und Wirksamkeit (siehe u.v.a. Moldovan ./ Rumänien (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 41138/98 und 64320/01, Rdnr. 118, ECHR 2005-VII (Auszüge)).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 27801/05

  Anwendbarkeit der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) auf ein Verfahren …

  Das Gebot des Zugangs zu einem Gericht muss nicht nur im Gesetz, sondern auch in der Praxis verankert sein, ansonsten fehlt ihm die erforderliche Zugänglichkeit und Wirksamkeit (siehe u.v.a. Moldovan ./ Rumänien (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 41138/98 und 64320/01, Rdnr. 118, ECHR 2005-VII (Auszüge)).