Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DRACI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DRACI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 5349/02

  Reports (regarding, inter alia, conditions of detention) of inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, relevant domestic law and practice from the Republic of Moldova concerning conditions of detention, 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 - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 5349/02

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 116, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Khlaifia, cited above, § 160(c)).
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 5349/02

  Once this burden has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact used, or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from this requirement (see, inter alia, Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 5349/02

  In 1996, in the name of D., he concluded a contract with a collective farm (N.), situated in the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria" (the "MRT" - for further details about the "MRT", see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII, and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 5349/02

  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, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO AND HALABUDENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court notes its previous findings to the effect that remedies before de facto "MRT courts" were not to be exhausted as it deemed them to be ineffective (see Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 48, 17 October 2017) owing to the absence of any indication that those courts were "part of a judicial system operating on a constitutional and legal basis reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention" (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 148, 150 and 211).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 56618/08

  BERZAN ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà conclu, notamment dans l'affaire Draci c. République de Moldova et Russie (no 5349/02, § 41, 17 octobre 2017), qu'il n'était pas démontré que les voies de recours internes indiquées par le gouvernement russe étaient effectives pour se plaindre des violations de la Convention commises par les autorités de la « RMT'(voir, également, Mozer, précité, §§ 211 et 218).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 10094/10

  MATCENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà conclu, notamment dans l'affaire Draci c. République de Moldova et Russie (no 5349/02, § 41, 17 octobre 2017), qu'il n'était pas démontré que les voies de recours internes indiquées par le gouvernement russe étaient effectives pour se plaindre des violations de la Convention commises par les autorités de la « RMT'(voir également Mozer, précité, §§ 211 et 218).