Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CATAN ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CATAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 43370/04, 8252/05, 18454/06
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 43370/04
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 43370/04
• EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 43370/04
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 43370/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 43370/04

  The facts concerning the armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the period up to late 2003 are set out in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004-VII and only a summary of the key events is provided here for ease of reference.

  The Court had found that the Government's declaration made at the time of ratification, that it would not be able to guarantee compliance with its provisions in respect of the acts or omissions of the organs of the "MRT", was invalid, since its effect would be to deprive the population of the area controlled by the "MRT" of the protection of the Convention for an indefinite period (Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (dec), no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII).

• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 43370/04

  Moreover, according to the Court's own case-law, in particular the decision in Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII, jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention was primarily territorial and it was only in exceptional circumstances that an act performed extra-territorially could amount to an exercise of jurisdiction under Article 1. One such example, referred to in Bankovic (paragraph 70), was "when as a consequence of military action (lawful or unlawful) [a State] exercised effective control of an area outside its national territory" (and see also Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310 and Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 43370/04

  Moreover, according to the Court's own case-law, in particular the decision in Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII, jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention was primarily territorial and it was only in exceptional circumstances that an act performed extra-territorially could amount to an exercise of jurisdiction under Article 1. One such example, referred to in Bankovic (paragraph 70), was "when as a consequence of military action (lawful or unlawful) [a State] exercised effective control of an area outside its national territory" (and see also Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310 and Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV).

 
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 43370/04

  Discriminatory treatment can in principle amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3, where it attains a level of severity such as to constitute an affront to human dignity (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, §§ 90-92, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94; Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 305-311).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 43370/04

  The Court recalls that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 95, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 43370/04

  States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system and those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey [GC] (dec.), no. 46113/99, § 69, ECHR 2010-...).