Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (113)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  This and the fact that the applicant's detention was ordered by an investigating judge and not a prosecutor distinguished the case from Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III.

  See, for instance, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III.

• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  The Court recalls that although Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005).

  In the case of Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005) the Court found violations of Article 3, Article 5 § 3 in respect of insufficient reasons for the applicant's detention, and Article 5 § 4. The award made was EUR 4, 000. In the case of Becciev v. Moldova (no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005) the same violations were found and the same amount of compensation was awarded.

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award 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).

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  The Court recalls that Article 6 does not require a person charged with a criminal offence to co-operate actively with the judicial authorities (see, for example, the Dobbertin v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-D, p. 117, § 43) and that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his or her interests (see, mutatis mutandis, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  BECCIEV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  In the case of Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005) the Court found violations of Article 3, Article 5 § 3 in respect of insufficient reasons for the applicant's detention, and Article 5 § 4. The award made was EUR 4, 000. In the case of Becciev v. Moldova (no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005) the same violations were found and the same amount of compensation was awarded.
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 13089/87

  DOBBERTIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  The Court recalls that Article 6 does not require a person charged with a criminal offence to co-operate actively with the judicial authorities (see, for example, the Dobbertin v. France judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-D, p. 117, § 43) and that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his or her interests (see, mutatis mutandis, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  The Court recalls that an individual is not required to try more than one avenue of redress when there are several available (see, for example, Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 12, § 23).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  As regards the complaint about the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence, the Court recalls that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention requires, inter alia, that when carrying out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged; the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused (see, among other authorities, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 77).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  The Court has to determine whether the applicant needed regular medical assistance, whether he was deprived of it, as he claims, and, if so, whether this amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (cf. Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 53, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2026 - 52652/20

  ZAKUTNIY v. UKRAINE and 7 other applications

  The authorities must further show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually administered (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 116.
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 28749/18

  Osman Kavala

  La Cour rappelle que, dans d'autres affaires où elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention au regard de certaines périodes de détention provisoire, elle a considéré qu'il ne s'imposait plus de statuer séparément sur le fond des griefs relatifs à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention qui portaient sur ces mêmes périodes (voir, dans le même sens, Holomiov c. Moldova, no 30649/05, § 131, 7 novembre 2006 ; voir, mutatis mutandis, Zervudacki c. France, no 73947/01, §§ 60-61, 27 juillet 2006, et Lütfiye Zengin et autres c. Turquie, no 36443/06, § 92, 14 avril 2015).

• EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006, and Hummatov, cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko, cited above, § 100; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 84, 21 December 2010; Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 85, 11 October 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov, cited above, § 211).
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

  The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko, cited above, § 100; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 84, 21 December 2010; Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 85, 11 October 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at successfully treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov, cited above, § 211).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  [ENG]

  The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko, cited above, § 100; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 84, 21 December 2010; Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 85, 11 October 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov, cited above, § 211).
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 51216/06

  ROTARU v. MOLDOVA

  In so far as the other remedy referred to by the Government is concerned, namely a civil action to request an immediate end to the alleged violation, the Court observes that it has already found that that procedure does not constitute an "effective remedy" in respect of ongoing violations of Article 3 of the Convention (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 107, 7 November 2006).

  The Court reiterates that it has examined on numerous occasions the issue of domestic remedies by which to complain of poor conditions of detention in Moldova (see Sarban, cited above, §§ 57-62; Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, §§ 101-107, 7 November 2006; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos.

• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  [ENG]

  The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see Hummatov, cited above, § 116, and Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik, cited above, §§ 104-106; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko, cited above, § 100; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 84, 21 December 2010; Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 85, 11 October 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov, cited above, § 211).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 44694/13

  KOLESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  IVKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY v. MALTA
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 36443/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  BEKETOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13

  TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 42250/02

  CALMANOVICI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 12066/02

  CIORAP CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET 26 AUTRES AFFAIRES
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  VASENIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 42184/09

  KUSHNIR v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14

  PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  MODARCA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07

  MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 32863/13

  LITVINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11

  GORELOV (II) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 2613/13

  AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 28333/13

  TSELOVALNIK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 66583/11

  BUDANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05

  VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  STEPULEAC v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 45175/08

  SARA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 5901/13

  POZAIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  ISMATULLAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 30812/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

  MALENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30628/02

  UKHAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 39584/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 13371/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7101/06

  MALAI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 23151/09

  TALAMBUTA AND IASCININA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 33583/14

  DROVORUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 61050/11

  MESCEREACOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13

  KHALVASH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 21061/11

  PISAROGLU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 50054/07

  MITROFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 17012/09

  IRAKLI MINDADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 37075/14

  BRAGADIREANU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 33200/11

  OKOLISAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 76317/11

  BUBNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 32896/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 37829/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 45517/04

  KRIVOSEJS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 25339/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 25464/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 12444/05

  LEVA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14

  BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 30921/10

  GOREMICHIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 42372/08

  YEREMENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 29334/11

  LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 28173/10

  SILVESTRU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 60179/09

  CULEV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 29964/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 4834/06

  STRAISTEANU AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 19327/13

  KAVKAZSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 4772/06

  KOMAROV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65567/13

  YIZHACHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 36125/14

  BASTOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 35887/05

  JANIASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 13605/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 15594/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  URSU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 35324/04

  STICI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 39806/05

  PALADI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR - 9912/23 (anhängig)

  KÖSTEK c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 39070/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 74497/13

  MIRON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9443/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 10614/06

  ARSENIEV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 55792/08

  FERARU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 10809/06

  TURCAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 21984/05

  GOREA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 12544/08

  [ENG]