Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MANOLE AND POSTICA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);No violation of Article 5 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MANOLE AND POSTICA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  The facts concerning the historical background of the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-92 and the subsequent events, are set out in Ila??cu, Ivantoc, Le??co and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, 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).

  In so far as the Republic of Moldova is concerned, the Court notes that in Ila??cu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 311-19, ECHR 2004-VII), Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 103-07, ECHR 2012) and Mozer (cited above, §§ 97-98) it found that although Moldova had no effective control over the Transdniestrian region, it followed from the fact that Moldova was the territorial State that persons within that territory fell within its jurisdiction.

• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 47145/14

  MAMMADLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  This means that the competent court has to consider not only compliance with the procedural requirements of domestic law, but also the reasonableness of the suspicion underpinning the arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 43, ECHR 2002-II (extracts) and Mammadli v. Azerbaijan, no. 47145/14, § 72, 19 April 2018).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 66448/17

  EGMR verurteilt Türkei: Haft von Ex-Richter verstößt gegen Menschenrechte

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  The primary procedural guarantee flowing from Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is the right to an effective hearing by the court determining an appeal against detention (see Ba?? v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 212, 3 March 2020).

 
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 38898/04

  ROZHKOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  It also recalls that no issue arises under Article 5 § 4 where the impugned detention is of a short detention and the detainee is released speedily before any judicial review of the lawfulness of his or her detention could take place (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, §§ 158-159, ECHR 2003-X and Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, § 65, 31 January 2017).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  For its part, the Court also finds that Article 5 § 1(c) was applicable, since by the Russian Government's own admission, the reason for detention had not been to verify documents or as a crowd control measure (cf. Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, §§ 52-69, ECHR 2012), but following the alleged commission of an offence and in order to prevent them from fleeing after the fact.
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 9347/14

  MOUSTAHI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  However, in situations where applicants are deprived of any access to judicial review of their detention, the Court has in the past found it warranted to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 4 regardless of the length of detention (see, for instance, Moustahi v. France, no. 9347/14, §§ 102-104, 25 June 2020).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 61485/08

  BREGA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  The Court reiterates its established case-law to the effect that Article 5 § 1 may also apply to deprivation of liberty of a very short length (see, among many authorities, Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, §§ 48-50, 21 June 2011; Brega and Others v. Moldova, no. 61485/08, §§ 19 and 43, 24 January 2012; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 190, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Zelcs, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  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, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  The relevant materials have been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  TURTURICA AND CASIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  28648/06 and 18832/07, § 38, 30 August 2016).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09

  SHIMOVOLOS v. RUSSIA