Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice from the Republic of Moldova and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).

  My vote in the present case was based on my previous dissenting opinion in the case of Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on the issue of the Russian Federation's effective control over Transdniestria.

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  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 Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08

  MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted 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 the 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, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  The Court reiterates that 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 of deprivation of liberty 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 Mozer, cited above, § 178; Mursic v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, ECHR 2016; and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 159, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  The concept of a "continuing situation" refers to a state of affairs which operates by continuous activities by or on the part of the State to render the applicant a victim (Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014; and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, §§ 83-89, 9 July 2015).

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO AND HALABUDENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Moreover, the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prisons in which the applicant was detained in the "MRT" have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 76957/01, § 37, 17 October 2017; Eriomenco, cited above, § 57; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; and Draci, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 56618/08

  BERZAN ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Sur le fond 48. La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner les conditions matérielles de détention en « RMT'(voir, parmi d'autres, Mozer, précité, §§ 180-182, Eriomenco c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 42224/11, §§ 55-56, 9 mai 2017, et Apcov c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 13463/07, § 42, 30 mai 2017) et a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 33842/10

  DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 148-149; Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 57, 30 May 2017, and more recently, Cravcisin, cited above, §§ 29-30).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 48841/11

  FILIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner les conditions matérielles de détention en « RMT'(voir, parmi d'autres, Mozer, précité, §§ 180-182, Eriomenco c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 42224/11, §§ 55-56, 9 mai 2017, et Apcov c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 13463/07, § 42, 30 mai 2017) et a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 3445/13

  NEGRUTA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner les conditions matérielles de détention en « RMT'(voir, parmi d'autres, Mozer, précité, §§ 180-182, Eriomenco c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 42224/11, §§ 55-56, 9 mai 2017, et Apcov c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 13463/07, § 42, 30 mai 2017) et a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention.