Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COSTACHE v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 25615/07

  Further on, relying on the cases of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, 12 July 2005), the applicant maintained that the circumstances of his case fell within the scope of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

  As regards the general principles applicable in the current case, the Court recalls that in the case of Moldovan and Others v. Romania similar living conditions were held to amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 and gave also rise to the finding of a violation under Article 8 of the Convention due to the fact that they were caused by the authorities" actions and were aggravated by the authorities" discriminatory attitude towards the applicants (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, §§ 109, 110 and 113, 12 July 2005).

• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 25615/07

  Therefore, the Court finds that the applicant's living conditions were not the result of any activity carried out by, or in any sense, authorised by a local authority or linked to any unlawfulness in domestic terms (see mutatis mutandis, Moldovan and Others, cited above, López Ostra v. Spain, no. 16798/90, 9 December 1994; Fadeyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 55723/00, 16 October 2003).
• EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89

  GUERRA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 25615/07

  In the first place it must be noted that the Court is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case and it does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, no. 14967/89, § 44, 19 February 1998).

• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 25615/07

  Therefore, the Court finds that the applicant's living conditions were not the result of any activity carried out by, or in any sense, authorised by a local authority or linked to any unlawfulness in domestic terms (see mutatis mutandis, Moldovan and Others, cited above, López Ostra v. Spain, no. 16798/90, 9 December 1994; Fadeyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 55723/00, 16 October 2003).
• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  SENTGES v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 25615/07

  In this respect the Court recalls its previous findings that in issues involving an assessment of the priorities in the context of the allocation of limited State resources, the national authorities are in a better position to carry out this assessment than an international Court (see O"Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.), no. 54725/00, 28 February 2002; Sentges v. the Netherlands, no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003).
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 36448/97

  MARZARI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 25615/07

  Thus, for example, in the case of Marzari v. Italy (no. 36448/97, 4 May 1999) the Court stated that a refusal by the authorities to provide housing assistance to an individual suffering from a serious disease might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 because of the special link between such refusal and the private life of the individual.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 14217/10

  STRZELECKA v. POLAND

  The Court has also held that the scope of any positive obligation to house the homeless must be limited (see Costache v Romania (dec), no. 25615/07, 23 July 2012, § 21 and O'Rourke v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39022/97).).
• EGMR, 17.11.2022 - 35697/15

  CIURAR ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  S'agissant de la branche du grief relative à leurs conditions de vie après l'évacuation, dans les circonstances de l'espèce et au vu de la nature des allégations des requérants, la Cour examinera ce grief uniquement sous l'angle de l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, en ce sens, Costache c. Roumanie (déc.), no 25615/07, § 19, 27 mars 2012, Winterstein et autres c. France, no 27013/07, § 103, 17 octobre 2013, Cazacliu et autres c. Roumanie (déc.), no 63945/09, § 105, 4 avril 2017).
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 46889/16

  BEKIR AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Having considered the circumstances of the case and the nature of the applicants' allegations, the Court considers that the complaints under this head fall to be examined exclusively under Article 8 of the Convention (see Costache v. Romania (dec.), no. 25615/07, § 19, 27 March 2012; Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, § 103, 17 October 2013; and Cazacliu and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 63945/09, § 105, 4 April 2017).