Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COSOVAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  COSOVAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 45422/13

  ESANU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  The Court has found breaches of Article 5 in two somewhat similar Moldovan cases (Straisteanu and Others, cited above, § 88, and I. E. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 45422/13, §§ 62-68, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 62303/13

  Kein Methadon in Haft ist Menschenrechtsverstoß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  With reference to the principle of equivalence of treatment in and outside prisons (see paragraph 43 above; see also Wenner v. Germany, no. 62303/13, § 66, 1 September 2016), the Court considers that, where a certain treatment is generally available outside the prison and except for extraordinary circumstances, medical treatment required by a prisoner's condition should not be denied or only partially carried out simply because no such treatment (or specialist doctor) is available in prison or with reference to the scarcity of resources.
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  The Court's assessment 56. The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2, which ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention and also enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe, requires the State not only to refrain from the "intentional" taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see, amongst many other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-I, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, § 104, 31 January 2019, and Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 134, 25 June 2019).

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  The Court's assessment 56. The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2, which ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention and also enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe, requires the State not only to refrain from the "intentional" taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see, amongst many other authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 48, ECHR 2002-I, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, § 104, 31 January 2019, and Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 134, 25 June 2019).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the lives of prisoners entails providing them with proper medical care such as to prevent any fatal outcome (see Taïs v. France, no. 39922/03, § 98, 1 June 2006, and Angelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 125-130, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 44084/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  Thus, the detention of a person who is ill in inappropriate material and medical conditions may, in principle, amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, no. 44084/10, § 101, 5 March 2013, with the references therein).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 45520/04

  LARIONOVS AND TESS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  45520/04 and 19363/05, § 172, 25 November 2014; and Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, § 126, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 55089/13

  DORNEANU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  The Court also attaches importance to the fact that the applicant was affected not by the sequelae of any disease contracted during his time in prison, but by the development of his illness which had predated his imprisonment (see, mutatis mutandis, Gengoux v. Belgium, no. 76512/11, § 56, 13 December 2016 and Dorneanu v. Romania, no. 55089/13, § 52, 28 November 2017).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 999/19

  M.A. v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  The Court notes that Article 2 of the Convention may come into play even though the person whose right to life was allegedly breached did not die (Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase, cited above, §§ 134-145, and Aftanache v. Romania, no. 999/19, § 48, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 33955/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 13472/18

  Having regard to the subject matter of the application and all the elements in its possession, the Court considers that the applicant's wife has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application and that she thus has the requisite locus standi under Article 34 of the Convention (see, for example, Carrella v. Italy, no. 33955/07, §§ 48-51, 9 September 2014, and Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, ECHR 2016).
• RG, 29.09.1906 - V 22/06

  Öffentliche Flüsse

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 5432/15

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA

  In particular, the Court notes that while the decision of 2 July 2014 by which the Tbilisi City Court decided that the applicant could remain at liberty without bail and did not need to surrender his ID card and international passport preceded his arrest by only one day (see paragraph 17 above), the applicant did not argue that the charges in both cases were similar (compare Mikhaniv, cited above, § 85; contrast Dubinskiy v. Russia, no. 48929/08, § 43, 3 July 2014; Korban, cited above, § 149; I.E. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 45422/13, §§ 64-65, and 67, 26 May 2020; and Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, § 99, 22 March 2022).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 69086/14

  MACHINA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  There is no evidence that the applicant was ever examined by a specialist doctor or that the prescribed HCV medication had ever actually been administered (see Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, §§ 28 and 30, 22 March 2022, which noted the absence of a hepatologist in Prison no. 16 and the lack of accreditation of the prison medical service).
• EGMR, 17.10.2024 - 16310/20

  S.M. v. ITALY

  Nevertheless, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that in particularly serious cases situations may arise where the proper administration of criminal justice requires remedies in the form of humanitarian measures (see, for example, Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, § 78, 22 March 2022, and Dorneanu v. Romania, no. 55089/13, § 80, 28 November 2017).

• EGMR, 10.04.2025 - 4953/22

  MORABITO v. ITALY

  In such cases, the Court generally takes factual updates provided by the parties during the proceedings, such as a development in the applicant's health condition or in the treatment provided, into account (see, for instance, Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 153-68, 31 January 2019 or Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, §§ 80-86, 22 March 2022, which concerned uninterrupted periods of detention).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 15230/18

  ESANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court considers that the artificial division of a criminal investigation into several separate criminal investigations in order to circumvent mandatory legal provisions is incompatible with Article 5 of the Convention (compare Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, § 99, 22 March 2022).
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 1017/21

  AVIGNONE v. ITALY

  Therefore, and having regard to the subject matter of the complaints, the Court considers that Mr Guerino Avignone has standing to continue the proceedings in the applicant's stead (see Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, § 51, 22 March 2022, with further references).
• EGMR - 35348/21 (anhängig)

  RUSCHIH v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA and 3 other applications

  In application no. 45689/22, was the applicant's state of health compatible with his continued detention (in view of the absence or presence of adequate treatment for his condition in prison)? In particular, did the domestic courts assess sufficiently whether the applicant's state of health had an impact on the grounds which justified his pre-trial detention and whether alternative measures could have secured his presence at the trial, in compliance with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 93, ECHR 2000-XI; Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 57-58, 23 April 2013; and Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, § 100, 22 March 2022)?.
• EGMR - 26764/24 (anhängig)

  SHLYUGIN v. UKRAINE

  Considering the applicant's state of health, was his continued detention compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Contrada v. Italy (no. 2), no. 7509/08, §§ 79-85, 11 February 2014, Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, §§ 58-61, 2 December 2004, and Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, § 78, 22 March 2022)?.
• EGMR - 27445/22 (anhängig)

  PANASENKO v. UKRAINE

  Considering the applicants' state of health, was their continued detention compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Contrada v. Italy (no. 2), no. 7509/08, §§ 79-85, 11 February 2014, Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, §§ 58-61, 2 December 2004, and Cosovan v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 13472/18, §§ 73-90, 22 March 2022)?.