Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Di. den 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Di. den 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,59117
EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05 (https://dejure.org/2005,59117)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.10.2005 - 3456/05 (https://dejure.org/2005,59117)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Oktober 2005 - 3456/05 (https://dejure.org/2005,59117)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,59117) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 (insufficient reasons for detention) No violation of Art. 5-3 (statutory competence of judges) Violation of Art. 5-4 (length of review) No violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (261)Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

    NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    The Court notes that this reason was invoked for the first time during the proceedings before it, and must therefore be treated with caution especially in the absence of any form of substantiation (see Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 74 et seq., 30 January 2003).

    Accordingly, the Government's new reasons, which were raised for the first time in the proceedings before the Court, are irrelevant (Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 74 et seq., 30 January 2003).

  • EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

    Transnistrien

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    He invoked the fact that his lawyer had extensive experience in the field of human rights, having won extremely complex cases before this Court such as Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-...).
  • EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

    NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    Rn. 90 In the Court's view, the failure to provide basic medical assistance to the applicant when he clearly needed and had requested it, as well as the refusal to allow independent specialised medical assistance, together with other forms of humiliation as noted in paragraph 88 above, amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kudła v. Poland, cited above, § 94; Farbtuhs v. Latvia, cited above, § 51; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 106, 5 April 2005).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    In this context, "[a]rguments for and against release must not be 'general and abstract'" (Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

    Schiesser ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    Before an 'officer' can be said to exercise "judicial power" within the meaning of this provision, he or she must satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the person detained against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, pp. 13-14, § 31).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    The Court recalls that under the second limb of Article 5 § 3, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his continuing detention (Yağcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    Rn. 96 Moreover, the domestic courts "must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release" (Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 35).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

    BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004).
  • EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

    NIEDBALA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    If it is not justified, the "officer" must have the power to make a binding order for the detainee's release (see the above-mentioned Schiesser judgment, pp. 13-14, § 31, and the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 75-76, § 199)" (Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, §§ 49-50, 4 July 2000).
  • EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 18882/02

    CROITORU v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
    The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (Croitoru v. Moldova, no. 18882/02, § 35, 20 July 2004).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90
  • EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

    FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

    POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  • EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 12066/02

    CIORAP CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET 26 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  • EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 62303/13

    Kein Methadon in Haft ist Menschenrechtsverstoß

    Die behördliche Verweigerung der von einem unter schwerwiegenden Gesundheitsproblemen leidenden Gefangenen beantragten unabhängigen fachspezifischen medizinischen Unterstützung ist ein Aspekt, mit dem sich der Gerichtshof bei der Beurteilung der staatlichen Einhaltung von Artikel 3 bereits auseinandergesetzt hat (vgl. bspw. Sarban./. Moldau, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 3456/05, Rdnr. 90, 4. Oktober 2005).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

    Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

    Dezember 2000; und Sarban ./. Moldau, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 3456/05, Randnr. 118, 4.
  • EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

    YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA

    The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that the 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; 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 v. Russia, cited above, § 211).

    Its ordinary task in such cases is therefore to assess the quality of medical services rendered to applicants and, if they have been deprived of adequate medical assistance, to ascertain whether this amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 78, 4 October 2005).

    In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht