Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MODARCA v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  Indeed, if a lawyer were unable to confer with his client and receive confidential instructions from him without surveillance, his assistance would lose much of its usefulness, whereas the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see, inter alia, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  The Court recalls that it has previously held that confidential communication with one's lawyer is protected by the Convention as an important safeguard of one's right to defence (see, for instance, Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, § 46 and Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see paragraph 40 above)).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  It awards the applicant the total sum of EUR 7, 000 for non-pecuniary damage (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 109, ECHR 2000-IX).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  The guarantees provided in Article 6 concerning access to a lawyer have been found to be applicable in habeas corpus proceedings (see for example Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 60).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  (b) Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI, both with reference to Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  (c) The proceeedings must be adversarial and must always ensure "equality of arms" between the parties (see Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, § 29).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  Article 6 has been found to have some application at the pre-trial stage (see, for instance, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36, and John Murray v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 1996, Reports, 1996-I, p. 54, § 62) during which the review of the lawfulness of pre-trial detention typically takes place.
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  In Bouamar v. Belgium, (judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 60), the Court held that it was essential not only that the individual concerned should have the opportunity to be heard in person but that he should also have the effective assistance of his lawyer.
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  In case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1(c) a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Assenov and Others, cited above, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51; and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 23190/17

  PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'une annexe sanitaire qui n'est que partiellement isolée par une cloison n'est pas acceptable dans une cellule occupée par plus d'un détenu (Canali c. France, no 40119/09, § 52, 25 avril 2013), qu'elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention en raison des mauvaises conditions d'hygiène en cellule (Vasilescu c. Belgique, no 64682/, § 103, 25 novembre 2014; Ananyev et autres, précité, §§ 156-159 ; Florea c. Roumanie, no 37186/03, § 59, 14 septembre 2010 ; Modarca c. Moldavie, no 14437/05, §§ 65-69, 10 mai 2007 ; et Kalachnikov, précité, §§ 98-103).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour rappelle s'être penchée à de multiples reprises sur la question de savoir si les voies de recours internes garantissaient une réparation effective des violations de la Convention résultant des mauvaises conditions de détention en République de Moldova (Sarban c. Moldova, no 3456/05, §§ 57-62, 4 octobre 2005, Holomiov c. Moldova, no 30649/05, §§ 101-107, 7 novembre 2006, Istratii et autres c. Moldova, nos 8721/05, 8705/05 et 8742/05, § 38, 27 mars 2007, Modarca c. Moldova, no 14437/05, § 47, 10 mai 2007, Stepuleac c. Moldova, no 8207/06, § 46, 6 novembre 2007, Mitrofan c. République de Moldova, no 50054/07, §§ 32 et 33, 15 janvier 2013, et Segheti, précité, § 22).
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  They submitted that according to the Court's case-law, the facts of a particular case must be viewed in the light of the circumstances as a whole, and referred to the Court's findings in Peers v. Greece (no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III), Kalashnikov v. Russia (no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI) and Modarca v. Moldova (no. 14437/05, 10 May 2007).

 
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 29760/15

  LAUTARU ET SEED c. GRÈCE

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'une annexe sanitaire qui n'est que partiellement isolée par une cloison n'est pas acceptable dans une cellule occupée par plus d'un détenu (Canali c. France, no 40119/09, § 52, 25 avril 2013), qu'elle a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention en raison des mauvaises conditions d'hygiène en cellule (Vasilescu c. Belgique, no 64682/12, § 103, 25 novembre 2014, Ananyev et autres, précité, §§ 156-159, Florea c. Roumanie, no 37186/03, § 59, 14 septembre 2010, Modarca c. Moldavie, no 14437/05, §§ 65-69, 10 mai 2007, et Kalachnikov, précité, §§ 98-103).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5471/14

  AMARIKYAN v. ARMENIA

  As to the alleged poor quality of food, although the food served in the hospital canteen appears to be monotone (see paragraph 4 above), there is no indication that the eating arrangements were improper or that the kitchen facilities were unsanitary (contrast Modarca v. Moldova, no. 14437/05, §§ 38 and 67, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 31623/17

  BARDALI c. SUISSE

  Ensuite, constatant que le requérant n'a pas soumis une liste détaillée et cohérente de ses doléances, n'ayant notamment pas mentionné les dates ou des circonstances plus précises des restrictions dont il se plaint (voir, entre autres, Podeschi c. Saint-Marin, no 66357/14, § 112, 13 avril 2017), et que le dossier ne fait pas apparaître une dégradation de son état physique ou un risque pour sa santé (voir, a contrario, Modarca c. Moldova, no 14437/05, §§ 11, 28 et 64, 10 mai 2007), la Cour relève dans le rapport du directeur de la prison (paragraphe 7 ci-dessus) et dans les observations du Gouvernement (paragraphes 39 et 41 ci-dessus) que l'intéressé a pu bénéficier d'une heure de promenade quotidienne à l'air libre et, entre le 17 novembre 2014 et le 19 août 2015, d'une heure de sport hebdomadaire dans une salle de gymnastique.
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 71645/13

  YANEZ PINON AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  When detainees are detained for a longer period of time, special attention needs to be paid to the cumulative effect (see, for example, Modarca v. Moldova, no. 14437/05, § 69, 10 May 2007).