Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TURCAN AND TURCAN v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  It considers that this not only cannot constitute a ground for detaining a person, but it is in breach of the accused's right to remain silent as guaranteed by Article 6 the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  Therefore, information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to the suspect's lawyer (see, among other authorities, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29, and Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, §§ 39-43, 13 February 2001).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  Therefore, information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to the suspect's lawyer (see, among other authorities, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29, and Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, §§ 39-43, 13 February 2001).

• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  In view of the dramatic impact of deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned, proceedings conducted under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention should in principle meet, to the largest extent possible under the circumstances of an ongoing investigation, the basic requirements of a fair trial (Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 77, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  It further recalls, in this connection, that 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, and Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 33, 13 March 2007).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  The Court recalls the general principles established in its case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the requirement to give relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention (see, for instance, Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 95-99, 4 October 2005), failing which the detention may be regarded as arbitrary.
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  In respect of an impugned period of detention, the Court has also found a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Ambruszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 38797/03, § 33, 4 May 2006, and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 91, 1 March 2007) on the ground that the authorities had failed to justify the deprivation of liberty.
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  It further recalls, in this connection, that 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, and Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 33, 13 March 2007).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 38797/03

  AMBRUSZKIEWICZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  In respect of an impugned period of detention, the Court has also found a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Ambruszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 38797/03, § 33, 4 May 2006, and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 91, 1 March 2007) on the ground that the authorities had failed to justify the deprivation of liberty.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17391/06

  [ENG]

  Although the reasonableness of the length of the detention cannot be defined in abstracto, and whereas even short periods of detention are susceptible to review by the Court (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts), and Å¢urcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, §§ 45 et seq., 23 October 2007), the Court observes that in casu the applicants" detention was mainly justified by the gravity of the charges against them; the three detention orders were equally laconic and did not rely on other facts specific to the situation of each applicant (except for a very general reference to the "personality" of the first applicant).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  This may require the court to hear witnesses whose testimony appears prima facie to have a material bearing on the continuing lawfulness of the detention (ibid., §§ 72-76, and Ţurcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, §§ 67-70, 23 October 2007).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 23755/07

  Buzadji v. Republic of Moldova

  In this context, the Court notes that it has already found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in cases where applicants had been detained for short periods of time: a total of thirteen days in Å¢urcan v. Moldova (no. 39835/05, 23 October 2007); forty-six days in Musuc v. Moldova (no. 42440/06, 6 November 2007); three months and four days in Sarban (cited above), and approximately four months and a half in Becciev (cited above) and in Castravet v. Moldova (no. 23393/05, 13 March 2007).

• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 59474/11

  BALAKIN AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 22 OTHER CASES

  39835/05.
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 679/13

  VERETCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  However, this legitimate goal cannot be pursued at the expense of substantial restrictions on the rights of the defence (see Turcan and Turcan v. Moldova (no. 39835/05, § 60, 23 October 2007, and Musuc v. Moldova, no. 42440/06, § 54, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 34382/07

  [ENG]

  Cette exigence peut imposer au tribunal compétent d'entendre les témoins dont les dépositions semblent, de prime abord, susceptibles d'influer de manière décisive sur la légalité du maintien en détention de l'intéressé (Becciev, précité, §§ 72-76, et Å¢urcan c. Moldova, no 39835/05, § 67-70, 23 octobre 2007).
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 17689/03

  TIRON c. ROUMANIE

  Elle rappelle que, non seulement ce motif ne peut justifier une mesure privative de liberté, mais porte atteinte aux droits de garder le silence et de ne pas contribuer à sa propre incrimination tels que garantis par l'article 6 de la Convention (Å¢urcan c. Moldova, no 39835/05, § 51, 23 octobre 2007 et, mutatis mutandis, Jalloh c. Allemagne [GC], no 54810/00, § 100, CEDH 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 21108/16

  BARUCA v. SAN MARINO

  As to the alleged impossibility to call witnesses on her behalf it is noted that the applicant has not provided this Court with any useful information concerning the identity of the witnesses in question or why their evidence, prima facie, appeared to have a material bearing on the issue of the continuing lawfulness of her detention (see Ţurcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, § 67, 23 October 2007).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 55792/08

  FERARU v. MOLDOVA

  The Court recalls that where there is evidence which prima facie appears to have a material bearing on the issue of the continuing lawfulness of detention, it is essential, for compliance with Article 5 § 4, that the domestic courts examine and assess it (see mutatis mutandis, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 130-131, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Hussain v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1996, § 60, Reports 1996-I; Becciev v. Moldova, cited above, § 72; and Å¢urcan and Å¢urcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, § 67, 23 October 2007).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 38055/06

  [ENG]

  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).
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 22386/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 15230/18

  ESANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 13150/11

  IURCOVSCHI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 3077/10

  CIORNEA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 10809/06

  TURCAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 50473/11

  PASA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA