Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+5, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (ratione personae) Preliminary objection joined to merits and allowed (ratione personae) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 5 No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 13 Violation ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (33)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  Application no. 48787/99 and the Court's judgment of 8 July 2004.

  The facts concerning the background of application no. 48787/99, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the period up to late 2003, are set out in Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004-VII.

  In a judgment of 8 July 2004 in application no. 48787/99 the Grand Chamber of the Court found that both Moldova and the Russian Federation's responsibility was engaged with regard to the acts complained of and held that there had been violations of various Articles of the Convention (see below, paragraph 12).

  Nevertheless, in the Court's opinion, the Moldovan Government were under a positive obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to take the diplomatic, economic, judicial or other measures that were in their power to take and that were in accordance with international law to secure to the applicants the rights guaranteed by the Convention (Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII, §§ 330-331).

  Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the case of Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia, No. 48787/99.

  Referring to the decision in the case of Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (8 July 2003, no. 15227/03), they pointed out that in the present case, the Committee of Ministers had not yet completed the proceedings for execution of the Court's judgment in case no. 48787/99 and that the monitoring of that issue involved a dialogue between the authorities of the Russian Federation and the Council of Europe.

  Moreover, they submitted that the Court cannot deal with an application that was substantially the same as a matter that had already been examined by the Court and claimed that there were hardly any new facts in the present application compared to application no. 48787/99.

  The Court must therefore ascertain whether the present application relies on the same facts as application no. 48787/99 in the case of Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia.

  The Court notes that in its judgment of 8 July 2004 concerning application no. 48787/99, it found, inter alia, a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the applicants, and stated that "any continuation of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the three applicants would necessarily entail a serious prolongation of the violation of Article 5 found by the Court and a breach of the respondent States" obligation under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention to abide by the Court's judgment" (§ 490).

  In this context, the Court notes that in its Interim Resolution 2007(106) adopted on 12 July 2007, the Committee of Ministers decided to suspend the examination of the case Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia (application no. 48787/99) and to "resume it after the final determination of the new application [no. 23687/05] by the European Court of Human Rights".

  The Court"s assessment in application no. 48787/99.

  The Court"s assessment in application no. 48787/99.

  The applicants complained of their continued detention after the Court had delivered its judgment in the Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa case (application no. 48787/99) on 8 July 2004 and of a lack of effective remedies in this respect.

  I regret to have to express my profound disagreement with the present judgment, as I did in the Grand Chamber's Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia judgment ([GC], no. 48787/99, 8 July 2004, ECHR 2004-VII).

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 69190/01

  KRCMAR et AUTRES contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  The Court reiterates that findings of a violation in its judgments are in principle declaratory (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31; Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX; and Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 69190/01, 30 March 2004) and that, by Article 46 of the Convention, the High Contracting Parties undertook to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they were parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers (see, mutatis mutandis, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (former Article 50), 31 October 1995, § 34, Series A no. 330-B).

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  Nevertheless, in certain situations, the Court can indicate the specific remedy or other measure to be taken by the respondent State (see, for instance, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, point 14 of the operative part, ECHR 2004-II; Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  The Court relied mainly on the fact that the grounds for dismissing the application to reopen proceedings constituted relevant new information capable of giving rise to a fresh violation of the Convention (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 65, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29061/08

  STECK-RISCH AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  The Chamber could have looked more carefully at previous cases in which the Court decided that complaints about the unsatisfactory execution of its judgments were outside its competence ratione materiae (in particular, Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/93, ECHR 2003-IX; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010; Schelling v. Austria (dec.), no. 46128/07, 16 September 2010; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no.2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 46128/07

  SCHELLING v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  The Chamber could have looked more carefully at previous cases in which the Court decided that complaints about the unsatisfactory execution of its judgments were outside its competence ratione materiae (in particular, Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/93, ECHR 2003-IX; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010; Schelling v. Austria (dec.), no. 46128/07, 16 September 2010; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no.2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08

  GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, 23 November 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  KAFKARIS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  The Chamber could have looked more carefully at previous cases in which the Court decided that complaints about the unsatisfactory execution of its judgments were outside its competence ratione materiae (in particular, Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/93, ECHR 2003-IX; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010; Schelling v. Austria (dec.), no. 46128/07, 16 September 2010; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no.2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 28.04.2008 - 35014/97

  HUTTEN-CZAPSKA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  The same also applies in cases where the Court, having adopted a pilot-judgment and identified a systemic situation, indicated specific remedial measures or actions to be taken by the respondent State to remedy them, and included appropriate directions in the operative part of the judgment: it falls to the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the implementation of such measures under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention (see, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, §§ 189-194 and the operative part, ECHR 2004-V; Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 42, ECHR 2005-IX; Hutten Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 231-239 and the operative part, ECHR 2006-VIII; Hutten Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 35014/97, § 42, ECHR 2008-...; Suljagic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 27912/02, § 61; and Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  La Cour est parvenue à une conclusion similaire dans l'arrêt Ivantoc et autres c. Moldova et Russie (no 23687/05, §§ 105-111, 15 novembre 2011).

  Je ne puis, à regret, partager les conclusions de la majorité sur plusieurs points, comme ce fut précédemment le cas dans les affaires Ilascu et autres c. Moldova et Russie ([GC], no 48787/99, CEDH 2004-VII) et Ivantoc et autres c. Moldova et Russie (no 23687/05, 15 novembre 2011).

• EGMR, 07.02.2013 - 16574/08

  FABRIS c. FRANCE

  See also Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 37, 10 April, 2008, and Ivantoc, Popa and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, §§ 86, and 95-96, 15 November 2011.
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  De plus, dans le cas particulier d'une violation d'un droit conventionnel se poursuivant après l'adoption d'un arrêt constatant que ce droit a été violé pendant une certaine période, il n'est pas inhabituel que la Cour examine une seconde requête alléguant la violation de ce droit pendant la période subséquente (voir, parmi d'autres, Ivantoc et autres c. Moldova et Russie, no 23687/05, §§ 93-96, 15 novembre 2011, concernant un maintien en détention ; Wasserman c. Russie (no 2), no 21071/05, §§ 36-37, 10 avril 2008, concernant l'inexécution d'une décision de justice interne, et Rongoni c. Italie, précité, § 13, concernant la durée d'un procès).

 
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 486/14

  Psychiatrie-Opfer scheitert mit erneuter Beschwerde

  Darüber hinaus ist es speziell im Zusammenhang mit einer fortdauernden Verletzung eines Konventionsrechts nach Erlass eines Urteils, in dem der Gerichtshof eine Verletzung dieses Rechts während eines gewissen Zeitraums festgestellt hat, nicht ungewöhnlich, dass der Gerichtshof eine zweite Individualbeschwerde über eine Verletzung dieses Rechts in dem darauffolgenden Zeitraum prüft (siehe u. a. Ivantoc u. a../. Moldau und Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23687/05, Rdnrn. 93 bis 96, 15. November 2011 im Hinblick auf ein fortdauernde Inhaftierung; Wasserman./. Russland (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 21071/05, Rdnrn. 36 bis 37, 10. April 2008 im Hinblick auf die Nichtdurchsetzung eines innerstaatlichen Urteils;… und Rongoni./. Italien, a.a.O., Rdnr. 13, im Hinblick auf die Verfahrensdauer).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  SARGSYAN c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  The Court relied on the same finding in Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, § 105, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  All that is "relevant new information" within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2009, and Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, § 93, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  The present case is not, as I see it, a case where a subsequent application raises or supposedly raises a new issue in relation to a previous application, as for example in Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009); nor is it a case of a continuing violation divisible into temporal parts for which compensation is adjudged separately, as in Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), or a case where the time element, being relevant to a proper investigation, is singled out and dealt with separately before the examination of other aspects that are still pending in an ongoing investigation, as in McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 43098/09, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 34323/21

  STEFAN-GABRIEL MOCANU c. ROUMANIE

  Comme la Cour l'a déjà souligné, après l'adoption d'un arrêt constatant qu'un droit a été violé pendant une certaine période, il n'est pas inhabituel que la Cour examine une seconde requête relative à un grief de violation du même droit pendant la période subséquente (voir, entre autres, Ivan?£oc et autres c. Moldova et Russie, no 23687/05, § 87, 15 novembre 2011, au sujet de la prolongation d'une détention, Wasserman c. Russie (no 2), no 21071/05, §§ 36-37, 10 avril 2008, au sujet de l'inexécution d'une décision définitive, et Rongoni c. Italie, no 44531/98, § 13, 25 octobre 2001, au sujet de la durée d'une procédure).
• EGMR, 11.07.2022 - 28749/18

  Urteil nicht befolgt: Türkei muss Geldstrafe im Fall Kavala zahlen

  Il en va de même lorsque le « problème nouveau'est né de la persistance de la violation constatée dans l'arrêt initial de la Cour (voir, par exemple, Ivantoc et autres c. Moldova et Russie, no 23687/05, § 95, 15 novembre 2011).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 56618/08

  BERZAN ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Comme il l'a fait dans l'affaire Mozer c. République de Moldova et Russie ([GC], no 11138/10, §§ 92-94, 23 février 2016), le gouvernement russe exprime le point de vue que l'approche adoptée par la Cour à l'égard de la question de la juridiction dans les affaires Ila?Ÿcu et autres c. Moldova et Russie ([GC], no 48787/99, 8 juillet 2004), Ivan?£oc et autres c. Moldova et Russie (no 23687/05, 15 novembre 2011) et Catan et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie ([GC], nos 43370/04 et 2 autres, 19 octobre 2012) était erronée et incompatible avec le droit public international.
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 8000/21

  JURISIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 10094/10

  MATCENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 48841/11

  FILIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 48108/07

  BESLEAGA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 19138/16

  IORDACHESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 8833/10

  TOTCHI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 22365/10

  CAZAC AND SURCHICIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06

  GRAMA AND DÎRUL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 3060/07

  SOBCO AND GHENT v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 5659/07

  COTOFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 7529/10

  CANTER AND MAGALEAS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  ERIOMENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR - 33446/11 (anhängig)

  MITUL AND COTOFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 3445/13

  NEGRUTA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  BOBEICO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 36724/10

  KOLOBYCHKO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA, RUSSIE ET UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 69528/10

  STOMATII c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 36545/06

  OPREA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 57468/08

  PANTELEICIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 557/12

  DYBEKU v. ALBANIA