Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANTONOV AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  The Court recalls that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of the injury, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 61, Reports 1996-VI, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  However, such a remedy is required only for complaints that can be regarded as "arguable" under the Convention (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 78, ECHR 2012, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014, and Mozer, cited above, § 207).
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, help him, to maintain contact with his close family (see, among many other authorities, Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015; and Mozer, cited above, § 190).

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, help him, to maintain contact with his close family (see, among many other authorities, Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015; and Mozer, cited above, § 190).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła, cited above, § 94, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 141, 10 January 2012, and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, 20 October 2016).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  The Court notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012 and in Mozer (cited above, §§ 81-95).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  The relevant materials have been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła, cited above, § 94, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 141, 10 January 2012, and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, 20 October 2016).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 315/10

  Finally, the Court notes that the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prisons in which the applicants have been detained in the "MRT" have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia; no. 76957/01, § 37, 17 October 2017; Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 57, 9 May 2017; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 58, 17 October 2017).
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 5349/02

  DRACI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 76957/01

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14

  PROJECT-TRADE D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  Under the Court's case law, if the authorities do not justify an interference with a Convention right, the Court may find this interference disproportionate (see, for instance, Association Rhino and Others v. Switzerland, no. 48848/07, § 65, 11 October 2011; Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia, no. 33203/08, § 58, 12 June 2014; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 193-199, 23 February 2016; Biržietis v. Lithuania, no. 49304/09, § 58, 14 June 2016; Antonov and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 315/10 1153/10 1158/10, § 90 2 July 2019; and P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1122/12, § 29-33, 26 May 2020).