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 ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• 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, 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, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  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, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  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, 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, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  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, 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, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).

• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

  Julija Tymoschenko

  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, 14.04.2015 - 36443/06

  LÜTFIYE ZENGIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  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 portent sur ces mêmes périodes (voir, mutatis mutandis, Zervudacki c. France, no 73947/01, §§ 60-61, 27 juillet 2006, et Holomiov c. Moldova, no 30649/05, § 131, 7 novembre 2006).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06

  POKHLEBIN v. UKRAINE

  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, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  The authorities also had to 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).
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  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, 20.10.2015 - 45175/08

  SARA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  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 portent sur ces mêmes périodes (Zervudacki c. France, no 73947/01, §§ 60-61, 27 juillet 2006, et Holomiov c. Moldova, no 30649/05, § 131, 7 novembre 2006).
• 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, 25.06.2013 - 30812/07

  TRÉVALEC c. BELGIQUE

  [3] Voir par exemple l'opinion des juges Lorenzen et Vajic dans l'arrêt Ouranio Toxo et autres c. Grèce (no 74989/01, 20 octobre 2005), l'opinion du juge Golcuklu dans l'arrêt Aktas c. Turquie (no 24351/94, 24 avril 2003), l'opinion de la juge Vajic, à laquelle se sont ralliés les juges Botoucharova et Kovler, dans l'arrêt S.L. c. Autriche (no 45330/99, 9 janvier 2003), l'opinion des juges Boutocharova et Hajiyev dans l'arrêt H.G. et G.B. c. Autriche (nos 11084/02 et 13306/02, 2 juin 2005) et l'opinion du juge Pavlovschi dans les arrêts Holomiov c. Moldova (no 30649/05, 7 novembre 2006) et Hutten-Czapska c. Pologne ([GC], no 35104/07, 22 février 2005).
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE

  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, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  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, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

  AGIT DEMIR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  SERGEY ANTONOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 37075/14

  BRAGADIREANU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

  JELADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  PITALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  BEKETOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 2613/13

  AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 13371/06

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

  YIZHACHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 29964/10

  BRESLAVSKAYA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03

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

  UKHAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 9912/23 (anhängig)

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

  ATAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 17012/09

  IRAKLI MINDADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 19327/13

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

  KOMAROV v. UKRAINE