Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARDANEAN 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 6 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of 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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2, and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 200, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  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 Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2, and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 200, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08

  MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  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, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  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

  Similar objections were raised and dismissed in the cases of Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121), Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017), and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• 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 - 59220/18 (anhängig)

  JUKOVEÈš AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 102-23, ECHR 2012 (extracts), on account of the circumstances of the present case? Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them by a tribunal established by law as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, 30 May 2017)? Were applicants 1, 2 and 4 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, 30 May 2017)? Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which applicants 1, 2 and 4 have been detained (Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, 17 July 2018)? Has there been a violation of the applicants" right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 85-153, 15 November 2018)? Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX.