Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GHIMP AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ghimp and Others v. Republic of Moldova

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  An award may still be made notwithstanding the large number of imponderables involved in the assessment of future losses (The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1989, § 15, Series A no. 38; Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom (just satisfaction), nos.
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  The effective investigation required under Article 2 serves to maintain public confidence in the authorities" maintenance of the rule of law, to prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts, to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001-III, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 69 and 72, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  The effective investigation required under Article 2 serves to maintain public confidence in the authorities" maintenance of the rule of law, to prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts, to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001-III, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 69 and 72, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  Compliance with the State's positive obligations under Article 2 requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity to enforce criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-04, Reports 1998-VI; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 18.05.2000 - 41488/98

  VELIKOVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII; and Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII; and Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  Consequently, where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but later dies, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of the events leading to his death (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmoun v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman, cited above; and Velikova, cited above).
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 43124/98

  TÜRKMEN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow life-endangering offences to go unpunished (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 96, ECHR 2004-XII; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII; and Türkmen v. Turkey, no. 43124/98, § 51, 19 December 2006).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow life-endangering offences to go unpunished (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 96, ECHR 2004-XII; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII; and Türkmen v. Turkey, no. 43124/98, § 51, 19 December 2006).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 23.01.2024 - 71555/12

  O.G. ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Dans ces circonstances et compte tenu du fait qu'à la date à laquelle ledit procureur s'est prononcé sur l'appel des requérantes, elle-même n'avait pas encore été appelée à se prononcer sur la recevabilité du grief tiré de l'article 8 de la Convention, la Cour conclut qu'elle ne saurait accueillir l'exception du Gouvernement (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ghimp et autres c. République de Moldova, no 32520/09, § 36, 30 octobre 2012, et Gavrilita c. République de Moldova, no 22741/06, § 53, 22 avril 2014).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  Compliance with the State's procedural obligations under Article 2 requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity and willingness to enforce criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others, cited above, § 160; and Ghimp and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 32520/09, § 43, 30 October 2012).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18944/02

  CORSACOV AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 18 OTHER CASES

  32520/09.

 
• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 22741/06

  GAVRILITA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Dans ces conditions particulières et compte tenu du fait que, à la date de l'adoption de cette décision, elle n'était pas encore appelée à se prononcer sur la recevabilité du grief tiré de l'article 3 de la Convention, la Cour ne saurait accueillir l'exception du Gouvernement (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ghimp et autres c. la République de Moldova, no 32520/09, § 36, 30 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 13421/06

  MORGOCI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Dans ces circonstances et compte tenu du fait que, à la date de l'adoption de cette décision définitive par la Cour suprême, elle-même n'avait pas encore été appelée à se prononcer sur la recevabilité du grief tiré de l'article 3 de la Convention, la Cour ne saurait accueillir l'exception du Gouvernement (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ghimp et autres c. République de Moldova, no 32520/09, § 36, 30 octobre 2012, et Gavrilita c. République de Moldova, no 22741/06, § 53, 22 avril 2014).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34823/05

  ÖZÇELEBI c. TURQUIE

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'elle tolère que le dernier échelon des recours internes soit atteint après le dépôt de la requête, mais avant qu'elle ne soit appelée à se prononcer sur la recevabilité (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ringeisen c. Autriche, 16 juillet 1971, § 91, série A no 13, E.K. c. Turquie (déc.), no 28496/95, 28 novembre 2000, Ghimp et autres c. République de Moldova, no 32520/09, § 36, 30 octobre 2012, et Rafaa c. France, no 25393/10, § 33, 30 mai 2013).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 43664/16

  SHMELEVA v. RUSSIA

  Compliance with the State's procedural obligations under Article 2 requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity and willingness to enforce the criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 90, 12 June 2014; and Ghimp and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 32520/09, § 43, 30 October 2012).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  M. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Compliance with the State's procedural obligations under Article 2 requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity and willingness to enforce criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; Ghimp and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 32520/09, § 43, 30 October 2012; and Jelic, cited above, § 90).