Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CANTARAGIU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CANTARAGIU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [FRA]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 87, ECHR 2010; El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 195, ECHR 2012; and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 315, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 55929/00

  MARIE-LOUISE LOYEN ET AUTRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  As an exception, where the direct victim died before the application was lodged, the Court has been prepared, with reference to an autonomous interpretation of the concept of "victim", to recognise the standing of a relative either when the complaints raised an issue of general interest pertaining to "respect for human rights" (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention) and the applicants as heirs had a legitimate interest in pursuing the application, or on the basis of a direct effect on the applicant's own rights (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 44-51, ECHR 2009, and Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 21-31, 5 July 2005).

 
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 69481/01

  BAZORKINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  Thus, the Court has recognised the standing of the victim's next of kin to submit an application where the victim has died or disappeared in circumstances allegedly engaging the responsibility of the State (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 92, ECHR 1999-IV, Bazorkina v. Russia (dec.), no. 69481/01, 15 September 2005 and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu, cited above, § 98).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 70077/11

  TIMUS AND TARUS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  In view of the grounds on which it has found a violation of Article 2 (see paragraphs 29-33 above), the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 3 in respect of the applicant's brother (see, for instance, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 83, ECHR 2004-XI, and Timus and Tarus v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 70077/11, § 58, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  In view of the grounds on which it has found a violation of Article 2 (see paragraphs 29-33 above), the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 3 in respect of the applicant's brother (see, for instance, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 83, ECHR 2004-XI, and Timus and Tarus v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 70077/11, § 58, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  Locus standi 21. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its practice and with Article 34 of the Convention, applications can only be lodged by, or in the name of, individuals who are alive (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 111, ECHR 2009, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 96, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  Having regard to the fundamental importance of the right to life, the Court must subject any possible interferences with Article 2 of the Convention to the most careful and thorough scrutiny, taking into account not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 150, Series A no. 324; and Tekin and Arslan v. Belgium, no. 37795/13, § 83, 5 September 2017).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 13013/11

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among other authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161 in fine, Series A no. 25; Labita, cited above, § 121; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX; Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 117, ECHR 2006-IX; and Gäfgen, cited above, § 92).

• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 9204/08

  STRAISTEANU AND AGACHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (see, for instance, Gäfgen, cited above, §§ 116 and 119, Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 103, 5 July 2016, and Cantaragiu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13013/11, § 48, 24 March 2020).