Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POCASOVSCHI AND MIHAILA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period (Russia);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim (the Republic of Moldova);Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  The Court recalls that the general principles concerning the issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention in respect of actions and facts pertaining to the Transdniestrian region of Moldova were set out in Ilascu and Others (cited above, §§ 311-19), Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 103-07, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and, more recently, Mozer (cited above, §§ 97-98).
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  The Court reiterates that although, in principle, an applicant is required to have recourse to domestic remedies before applying to the Court and compliance with that requirement is assessed on the date the application was lodged (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V), it can accept the fact that the last stage of such remedies may be reached after the lodging of the application but before it is called upon to pronounce on its admissibility (see Karoussiotis v. Portugal, no. 23205/08, §§ 57 and 87-92, ECHR 2011; Rafaa v. France, no. 25393/10, § 33, 30 May 2013; and Cestaro v. Italy, no. 6884/11, § 146, 7 April 2015).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  Relevant reports of various inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations concerning the situation in the "MRT" have been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 11138/10, §§ 61-68, ECHR 2016).

 
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 25393/10

  RAFAA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  The Court reiterates that although, in principle, an applicant is required to have recourse to domestic remedies before applying to the Court and compliance with that requirement is assessed on the date the application was lodged (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V), it can accept the fact that the last stage of such remedies may be reached after the lodging of the application but before it is called upon to pronounce on its admissibility (see Karoussiotis v. Portugal, no. 23205/08, §§ 57 and 87-92, ECHR 2011; Rafaa v. France, no. 25393/10, § 33, 30 May 2013; and Cestaro v. Italy, no. 6884/11, § 146, 7 April 2015).
• EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 23459/94

  HOLZINGER c. AUTRICHE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  Where, as in the present case, the victim status and therefore, the existence of a violation, is linked with the monetary redress afforded at domestic level, the Court's assessment necessarily involves comparison between the actual award and the amount that the Court would award in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 181 and 202, ECHR 2006-V; see also Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 21, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  The Court reiterates that although, in principle, an applicant is required to have recourse to domestic remedies before applying to the Court and compliance with that requirement is assessed on the date the application was lodged (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V), it can accept the fact that the last stage of such remedies may be reached after the lodging of the application but before it is called upon to pronounce on its admissibility (see Karoussiotis v. Portugal, no. 23205/08, §§ 57 and 87-92, ECHR 2011; Rafaa v. France, no. 25393/10, § 33, 30 May 2013; and Cestaro v. Italy, no. 6884/11, § 146, 7 April 2015).

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO AND HALABUDENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  As to the State's obligation to ensure respect for the applicant's rights, the Court considers that Moldovan authorities did not have any real means of securing the applicant release from the "MRT""s prisons (contrast Pocasovschi and Mihaila v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 1089/09, § 46, 29 May 2018).
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 28750/11

  VERSILOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Cependant, elle considère que, compte tenu des circonstances particulières de la présente affaire, il n'est pas nécessaire de trancher cette question, car la requête doit en tout état de cause être déclarée irrecevable dans sa partie dirigée contre la Russie pour les motifs indiqués ci-dessous (voir, dans le même sens, Pocasovschi et Mihaila c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 1089/09, § 47, 29 mai 2018).