Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,2174
EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,2174)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.02.2016 - 11138/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,2174)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Februar 2016 - 11138/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,2174)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,2174) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MOZER c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

    Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (Article 35-3 - Ratione loci;Ratione personae) (Russie);Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-1 - Epuisement des voies de recours internes) (République de Moldova);Partiellement irrecevable;Violation de l'article 3 - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MOZER v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

    Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione loci;Ratione personae) (Russia);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) (the Republic of Moldova);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MOZER v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    [DEU] Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione loci;Ratione personae) (Russia);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) (the Republic of Moldova);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

In Nachschlagewerken

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (93)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

  • EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

    LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    They contended that, in keeping with the Court's reasoning in the cases of Loizidou v. Turkey ((preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 62, Series A no. 310) and Cyprus v. Turkey ([GC], no. 25781/94, § 76, ECHR 2001-IV), a State could be considered to be exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction if it (a) continued to exercise control through subordinate local authorities and (b) kept control over the whole territory owing to the presence of a large number of troops and "practically exercised a global control over" the relevant territory.

    That may be as a result of military occupation by the armed forces of another State which effectively controls the territory concerned (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, and Cyprus v. Turkey, §§ 76-80, cited above, and also cited in the above-mentioned Bankovic and Others decision, §§ 70-71), acts of war or rebellion, or the acts of a foreign State supporting the installation of a separatist State within the territory of the State concerned.

    The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, derives from the fact of such control, whether it be exercised directly, through the Contracting State's own armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration (Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 62, Series A no. 310; Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 76, ECHR 2001-IV, Bankovic, cited above, § 70; Ilascu, cited above, §§ 314-316; Loizidou (merits), cited above, § 52; Al-Skeini, cited above, § 138).

  • 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, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    The situation was similar to the case of Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others ((dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII), in which the Court had recognised that jurisdiction could only be extended extraterritorially in exceptional cases.

    The Court refers to its case-law to the effect that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, judgment of 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II).

    The Court has established a number of clear principles in its case-law under Article 1. Thus, as provided by this Article, the engagement undertaken by a Contracting State is confined to "securing" ("reconnaître" in the French text) the listed rights and freedoms to persons within its own "jurisdiction" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A no. 161; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others [GC] (dec.), no. 52207/99, § 66, ECHR 2001-XII).

  • EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

    Transnistrien

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII) and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).

    Following the general principles established in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, § 66, ECHR 2012), the Court noted that there is no evidence of any direct participation by Russian agents in the measures taken against the applicant.

     
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

    ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    The Court refers to its case-law to the effect that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, judgment of 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII; and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II).

    Jurisdiction is presumed to be exercised normally throughout the State's territory (Ilascu, cited above, § 312; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 139, ECHR 2004-II).

  • EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

    LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    In so far as it refers to groups and individuals, its purpose is to make it impossible for them to derive from the Convention a right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at destroying any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention (see Lawless v. Ireland (merits), 1 July 1961, § 7, Series A no. 3, and Orban and Others v. France, no. 20985/05, § 33, 15 January 2009).
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    At the same time, the Court has long held that "[t]he Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

    CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    However, such a remedy is required only for complaints that can be regarded as "arguable" under the Convention (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 78, ECHR 2012, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

    KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, help him, to maintain contact with his close family (see, among many other authorities, Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; and Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    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, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

    GLADKIY v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
    The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 61, 30 September 2010; and Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 83, 21 December 2010).
  • EGMR - 10200/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR - 14163/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR - 21819/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR - 13466/03

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

  • EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

    Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

    LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02
  • EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

    Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  • EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

    PAKHOMOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

    MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  • EGMR - 19993/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

    IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 07.02.2018 - 47708/08

    JALOUD CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS

  • EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99

    GENTILHOMME, SCHAFF-BENHADJI ET ZEROUKI c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

    Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

    69234/11 and 2 others, § 80, 11 February 2016; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 193-199, 23 February 2016; Bir?¾ietis v. Lithuania, no. 49304/09, § 58, 14 June 2016; Kry?¾evicius v. Lithuania, no. 67816/14, §§ 67-70, 11 December 2018; P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, §§ 29-33, 26 May 2020; and Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 68817/14, §§ 152-159, 16 July 2020).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

    MURSIC c. CROATIE

    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 do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Idalov, cited above, § 93; Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, § 116; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016; and also, Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 141).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18

    Keine Zuständigkeit für aus dem Ausland beantragtes humanitäres Visum, um nach …

    The obligation to secure the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention in such an area derives from the fact of such control, whether it be exercised directly, through the Contracting State's own armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration (for a summary of the caselaw on these situations, see Al-Skeini and Others, cited above, §§ 138-140 and 142; for more recent applications of this caselaw, see Catan and Others, cited above, §§ 121-122; Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, § 186, ECHR 2015; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 110-111, 23 February 2016; and Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht