Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRECU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GRECU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [FRA]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 51099/10

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; The Arges College of Legal Advisers v. Romania, no. 2162/05, § 47, 8 March 2011; Women On Waves and Others v. Portugal, no. 31276/05, § 47, 3 February 2009; Velcea and Mazare v. Romania, no. 64301/01, § 138, 1 December 2009; Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, § 55, 20 April 2010; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012; and Mehmet Hatip Dicle v. Turkey, no. 9858/04, § 41, 15 October 2013; see also {{Kursiv|Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 9858/04

  MEHMET HATIP DICLE c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 51099/10

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; The Arges College of Legal Advisers v. Romania, no. 2162/05, § 47, 8 March 2011; Women On Waves and Others v. Portugal, no. 31276/05, § 47, 3 February 2009; Velcea and Mazare v. Romania, no. 64301/01, § 138, 1 December 2009; Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, § 55, 20 April 2010; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012; and Mehmet Hatip Dicle v. Turkey, no. 9858/04, § 41, 15 October 2013; see also {{Kursiv|Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 32510/09

  CAZANBAEV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 51099/10

  Taking into account the unlawful detention contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and the beating to which the applicant was subjected at the hands of the police, this is considerably below the amounts awarded by the Court in cases in which it has found a violation of Article 3 alone (see, for a recent example, Cazanbaev v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 32510/09, 19 January 2016, where the Court awarded the applicant EUR 12, 000 in respect of ill-treatment received at the hands of the police; see also, for example, Sochichiu v. Moldova, no. 28698/09, 15 May 2012, where the Court awarded EUR 15, 000 to Mr Sochichiu, who had been ill-treated during arrest).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 28698/09

  SOCHICHIU v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 51099/10

  Taking into account the unlawful detention contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and the beating to which the applicant was subjected at the hands of the police, this is considerably below the amounts awarded by the Court in cases in which it has found a violation of Article 3 alone (see, for a recent example, Cazanbaev v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 32510/09, 19 January 2016, where the Court awarded the applicant EUR 12, 000 in respect of ill-treatment received at the hands of the police; see also, for example, Sochichiu v. Moldova, no. 28698/09, 15 May 2012, where the Court awarded EUR 15, 000 to Mr Sochichiu, who had been ill-treated during arrest).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 51099/10

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; The Arges College of Legal Advisers v. Romania, no. 2162/05, § 47, 8 March 2011; Women On Waves and Others v. Portugal, no. 31276/05, § 47, 3 February 2009; Velcea and Mazare v. Romania, no. 64301/01, § 138, 1 December 2009; Villa v. Italy, no. 19675/06, § 55, 20 April 2010; Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012; and Mehmet Hatip Dicle v. Turkey, no. 9858/04, § 41, 15 October 2013; see also {{Kursiv|Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 59564/16

  AVCIOGLU c. TÜRKIYE

  La Cour considère que dans la présente affaire la somme de 1 556 EUR environ allouée par la CC au requérant en réparation du préjudice moral subi est inférieure au montant généralement octroyé par elle dans des affaires où elle a conclu à une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention (Darraj c. France, no 34588/07, § 50, 4 novembre 2010, et Grecu c. République de Moldova, no 51099/10, § 21, 30 mai 2017).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18944/02

  CORSACOV AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 18 OTHER CASES

  51099/10.