Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)

  Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim) Reminder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 7481/06

  It recalls its constant case-law to the effect that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 7481/06

  In reaching this conclusion, the court referred to Article 3 of the Convention and the Court's judgments such as Kudla v. Poland [GC] (no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI), Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005) and Ostrovar v. Moldova (no. 35207/03, 13 September 2005).

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11

  BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  According to the Court's case-law, in the event of a breach of Articles 2 and 3, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be available as part of the range of possible remedies (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 97-98, ECHR 2002-II and Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, §§ 24-25, 20 July 2010).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA

  In Keenan, for example, the Court found that there had been significant defects in the medical care provided to a mentally ill person known to be at risk of suicide, which amounted to a violation of Article 3. The Court concluded that the applicant should have been able to apply under Article 13 for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage she and her son had suffered before the latter's death (see also, as a more recent authority, Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, §§ 24-25, 20 July 2010, where the Court held that the applicant still had victim status as a result of the low amount of non-pecuniary damages awarded by the domestic courts in relation to a finding of inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 16744/14

  Die Schweiz hat das Folterverbot verletzt

  In the context of Article 3, which ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from a breach should in principle be available as part of the range of possible remedies (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Brincat and Others v. Malta, nos. 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11 and 62338/11, § 59, 24 July 2014; and Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, §§ 24-25, 20 July 2010).

 
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 19506/05

  EBCIN c. TURQUIE

  En effet, à ses yeux, cette procédure reflète davantage la dépréciation monétaire exorbitante qu'a subi la demande d'indemnisation, due essentiellement à la longueur de la procédure, que l'effectivité de cette dernière (voir dans ce contexte Okçu c. Turquie, no 39515/03, §§ 48-61, 21 juillet 2009 ; voir mutatis mutandis, Armoniene c. Lituanie, no 36919/02, §§ 42-48, 25 novembre 2008 où la législation empêchait le tribunal national d'aller au-delà de la limite d'indemnité prévue par elle ; voir aussi les considérations dans l'arrêt Ciorap (no 2) c. Moldova, no 7481/06, §§ 18-26, 20 juillet 2010, où la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 au motif que l'indemnité accordée à l'intéressé en droit interne pour sa détention dans des conditions inhumaines était dérisoire).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 54113/08

  SEVKET KÜRÜM ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Il est fondamental pour le mécanisme de protection établi par la Convention que les systèmes nationaux eux-mêmes permettent de redresser les violations commises, la Cour exerçant son contrôle dans le respect du principe de subsidiarité (Z et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 29392/95, § 103, CEDH 2001-V, A. et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 3455/05, § 174, CEDH 2009, et Ciorap c. Moldova (no 2), no 7481/06, § 22, 20 juillet 2010).
• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 22741/06

  GAVRILITA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Dans les circonstances particulières de la présente affaire et eu égard notamment aux constats établis par les tribunaux nationaux, la Cour estime qu'elle ne peut parvenir à une solution contraire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ciorap c. Moldova (no 2), no 7481/06, § 22, 20 juillet 2010).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 14092/06

  CIORAP c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA (N° 4)

  Il considère que les circonstances de la présente affaire sont très difficiles de distinguer de celles de l'affaire Ciorap c. Moldova (no 2), (no 7481/06, 20 juillet 2010) dans laquelle la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention dans le chef du requérant.
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 22743/07

  OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  A decision or measure of the domestic authorities favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive her of her status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for instance, Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, § 18, 20 July 2010).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 13421/06

  MORGOCI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Dans les circonstances particulières de la présente affaire et eu égard notamment aux constats établis par les tribunaux nationaux, la Cour estime qu'elle ne peut s'écarter des conclusions opérées par ces derniers (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ciorap c. Moldova (no 2), no 7481/06, § 22, 20 juillet 2010, et Gavrilita, précité, § 69).
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 27887/06

  SABEV v. BULGARIA

  A decision or measure taken by the domestic authorities which is favourable to the applicant is in principle not sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a victim unless those authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded adequate redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 7481/06, § 18, 20 July 2010).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4473/02

  ILIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 38178/08

  POPOVICI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 16391/05

  SHAHANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 18382/05

  RADKOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 23.08.2011 - 29568/06

  GALUSCHIN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 38625/05

  ZEYBEK c. TURQUIE