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 ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• 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, 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

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  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, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05

  A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  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 (Becciev, cited above, §§ 72-76; Å¢urcan and Å¢urcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, §§ 67-70, 23 October 2007).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17391/06

  PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  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 Turcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, §§ 67-70, 23 October 2007).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 34382/07

  TRIPADUS c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  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, 07.04.2015 - 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, 10.07.2018 - 13150/11

  IURCOVSCHI AND OTHERS 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, 15.05.2018 - 3077/10

  CIORNEA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's unilateral declaration of 18 January 2018 and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, ECHR 2016 (extracts); see also Turcan and Turcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, 23 October 2007; Rimschi v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1649/12, 13 January 2015), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above, and Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005)).
• 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, 15.05.2018 - 50473/11

  PASA 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).