Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OPREA v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  The relevant provisions of domestic law have been set out in Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, 13 September 2005; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005; Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005; and other similar cases in respect of Moldova.

  The Court refers to the relevant principles concerning the obligation to give relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering detention pending trial established in its previous case-law (see, amongst many other authorities, Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 95-99, 4 October 2005).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  The Court refers to the general principles concerning medical assistance to detainees set out in its previous case-law (see, amongst many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III and Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, §§ 59-63, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  The Court reiterates 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, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32).

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  The Court refers to the general principles concerning medical assistance to detainees set out in its previous case-law (see, amongst many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III and Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, §§ 59-63, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  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 Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  In particular, it reiterates that it cannot be ruled out that the detention of a person who is ill may raise issues under Article 3 of the Convention (see Mouisel v. France no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03

  RIVIERE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  The Court refers to the general principles concerning medical assistance to detainees set out in its previous case-law (see, amongst many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III and Rivière v. France, no. 33834/03, §§ 59-63, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  The Government have admitted in the past that such a procedure constitutes an effective remedy against alleged breaches of Article 3 (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, §§ 102 and 105, 7 November 2006).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  TURCAN AND TURCAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  It will examine the case under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention along the lines of the applicant's complaint, although it does not exclude that similar cases could also raise an issue under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention where the initial reasons for detention are insufficient and no new reasons are given for a continuation of detention (see Å¢urcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, § 52, 23 October 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  [FRE]

  Elle a pu ainsi observer une série de problèmes récurrents au sujet des prisons de ce pays, dont la surpopulation, le manque d'hygiène et de conditions matérielles appropriées, la mauvaise qualité et la quantité insuffisante de la nourriture, et l'absence de soins médicaux adéquats (voir, parmi d'autres, Becciev c. Moldova, no 9190/03, §§ 41-48, 4 octobre 2005, Holomiov, précité, §§ 113-122, Istratii, précité, §§ 48-59 et 68-72, Modarca, précité, §§ 63-69, Ciorap c. Moldova, no 12066/02, §§ 65-71, 19 juin 2007, Popovici c. Moldova, nos 289/04 et 41194/04, §§ 56-57, 27 novembre 2007, Turcan c. Moldova, no 10809/06, §§ 35-39, 27 novembre 2007, Malai c. Moldova, no 7101/06, §§ 33-35, 13 novembre 2008, Valeriu et Nicolae Rosca c. Moldova, no 41704/02, §§ 78-79, 20 octobre 2009, Gavrilovici c. Moldova, no 25464/05, §§ 42-44, 15 décembre 2009, I.D., précité, §§ 44-46, Oprea c. Moldova, no 38055/06, §§ 39-42, 21 décembre 2010, Rotaru c. Moldova, no 51216/06, §§ 33-42, 15 février 2011, Feraru c. Moldova, no 55792/08, §§ 41-46, 24 janvier 2012, Hadji c. Moldova, nos 32844/07 et 41378/07, §§ 19-20, 14 février 2012, Constantin Modarca c. République de Moldova, no 37829/08, §§ 25-27, 13 novembre 2012, Ciorap c. République de Moldova (no 3), no 32896/07, §§ 35-37, 4 décembre 2012, Mitrofan, précité, §§ 37-41, Ipati, précité, §§ 64-65 ; et Segheti, §§ 30-33).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 12066/02

  CIORAP CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET 26 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  38055/06.
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  [ENG]

  The remedy is therefore not effective in cases where people are still detained in such conditions at the time of lodging their application with the Court (see, for instance, Oprea v. Moldova, no. 38055/06, § 33, 21 December 2010).

• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 23151/09

  TALAMBUTA AND IASCININA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  It is not therefore effective in cases where people are still detained in such conditions at the time of lodging their application with the Court (see, for instance, Oprea v. Moldova, no. 38055/06, § 33, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 32896/07

  [ENG]

  It also observes that the remedy invoked by the Government (a court action claiming compensation) did not have a preventive effect in the sense of improving the conditions of the applicant's detention, but only a compensatory effect (see, for instance, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 107, 7 November 2006, and Oprea v. Moldova, no. 38055/06, § 33, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 37829/08

  [ENG]

  Therefore, it is not effective in the case of persons still detained in such conditions at the time of lodging their application with the Court (see, for instance, Oprea v. Moldova, no. 38055/06, § 33, 21 December 2010), which was and still is the applicant's situation.
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 74441/14

  BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  It is not therefore effective in cases where people are still detained in such conditions at the time of lodging their application with the Court (see, for instance, Oprea v. Moldova, no. 38055/06, § 33, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 60179/09

  CULEV v. MOLDOVA

  Therefore, it is not effective in the case of persons still detained in such conditions at the time of lodging their application with the Court (see, for instance, Oprea v. Moldova, no. 38055/06, § 33, 21 December 2010), which was the applicant's situation.
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 36125/14

  BASTOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  It is not therefore effective in cases where people are still detained in such conditions at the time of lodging their application with the Court (see, for instance, Oprea v. Moldova, no. 38055/06, § 33, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 12437/08

  [ENG]

  Rn. 29 The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the Republic of Moldova, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one's right not to be ill-treated and to be offered medical assistance required by his or her condition during detention (see, for example, Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 75-91, 4 October 2005; Corsacov v. Moldova, no. 18944/02, §§ 49-76, 4 April 2006; Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, §§ 83-127, 11 July 2006; Pruneanu v. Moldova, no. 6888/03, §§ 43-64, 16 January 2007; Oprea v. Moldova, no. 38055/06, §§ 38-42, 21 December 2010; and Taraburca v. Moldova, no. 18919/10, §§ 34-59, 6 December 2011), as well as about the absence of effective remedies in respect of Article 3 complaints (see, for instance, Corsacov, cited above, § 82, Pruneanu, cited above, § 70, Breabin v. Moldova, no. 12544/08, § 59, 7 April 2009; Gurgurov v. Moldova, no. 7045/08, § 73, 16 June 2009; and Parnov v. Moldova, no. 35208/06, § 38, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 19696/10

  [ENG]