Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MANGIR AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova, and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).

  My vote in the present case was based on my previous dissenting opinion in the case of Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on the issue of the Russian Federation's effective control over Transdniestria.

• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilascu and Others (cited above); Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011) was wrong and at variance with public international law.
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention, but the remedy must in any event be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the State (Mozer, cited above, § 207; Khlaifia and Others, cited above, § 268; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 179, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO AND HALABUDENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court sees no reasons to depart from that conclusion in the present case (see Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 71, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 42126/15

  O.J. AND J.O. v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, the Court cannot but note that the applicants did not submit medical certificates attesting to any physical after-effects of their detention in Abkhazia (compare Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 47, 17 July 2018 and Tanis v. Turkey (dec.), no. 15442/08, §§ 46-49, 9 February 2016).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 56618/08

  BERZAN ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  En l'espèce, la Cour ne voit aucune raison de parvenir à une conclusion différente (Mangîr et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 50157/06, § 71, 17 juillet 2018).

 
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 54714/17

  SVETOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, the failure of the respondent State to participate effectively in the proceedings should not automatically lead to acceptance of the applicants' claims, and the Court must be satisfied by the available evidence that the claim is well founded in fact and law (compare with the approach taken in Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, § 58, and Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, §§ 47-60, 17 July 2018, where one of the respondent Governments have only submitted observations on the issue of jurisdiction).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 48841/11

  FILIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Quant à la responsabilité de la Fédération de Russie, pour les mêmes motifs que ceux formulés dans le cadre de l'examen du grief tiré de l'article 3 de la Convention (paragraphes 39-40 ci-dessus) et en l'absence de toute observation émanant du gouvernement russe sur ce point, la Cour conclut à la violation par la Fédération de Russie de l'article 13 de la Convention combiné avec l'article 3 de la Convention (Mozer, précité, § 218, et Mangîr et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 50157/06, § 72, 17 juillet 2018).
• EGMR - 59220/18 (anhängig)

  JUKOVEÈš AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 102-23, ECHR 2012 (extracts), on account of the circumstances of the present case? Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them by a tribunal established by law as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, 30 May 2017)? Were applicants 1, 2 and 4 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, 30 May 2017)? Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which applicants 1, 2 and 4 have been detained (Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, 17 July 2018)? Has there been a violation of the applicants" right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 85-153, 15 November 2018)? Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX.