Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOBEICO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-general (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-general (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BOBEICO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 2 or Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  More details about the general background of the facts of the case are described in the Court's judgment in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 13-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  As they did in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 92-94, 23 February 2016), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII), Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law.

• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014; and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, §§ 83-89, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 2 or Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on these remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  As they did in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 92-94, 23 February 2016), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in the cases of Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII), Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law.
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see, inter alia, Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  It follows that this limb of the Russian Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed (see Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, § 31, 30 May 2017).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Similar objections were raised and dismissed in the cases of Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121), Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017), and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  GOLUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  The Court notes that a similar objection was raised by the Moldovan Government and dismissed by the Court in Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121), and by both Governments and dismissed in the cases of Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  CRAVCISIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND OTHERS

  The Court recalls that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the cases of Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).

• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 74433/11

  ASLANIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court notes that a similar objection was raised by the Moldovan Government and dismissed by the Court in Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121), and by both Governments and dismissed in the cases of Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 76892/14

  SCERBININA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court recalls that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the cases of Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 28857/14

  RÎBAC AND RODINA-AGRO S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court recalls that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the cases of Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 43370/04

  CATAN ET AUTRES CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET LA RUSSIE ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE

  30003/04.
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 36545/06

  OPREA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court notes that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the cases of Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06

  GRAMA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application

  The Court recalls that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the cases of Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 33583/14

  DROVORUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court notes that a similar objection was raised by the Moldovan Government and dismissed by the Court in Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121), in Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017) and in Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).