Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CRAVCISIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CRAVCISIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND OTHERS

  Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  The Court also found in subsequent cases concerning the Transdniestrian region that up until September 2016 (Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 72, 9 May 2017), the "MRT" was only able to continue to exist, and to resist Moldovan and international efforts to resolve the conflict and bring democracy and the rule of law to the region, because of Russian military, economic and political support (see Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia no. 23687/05, §§ 116-120, 15 November 2011; Catan and Others, cited above, §§ 121-122; and Mozer, cited above, §§ 108 and 110).

  It made a similar finding in respect of facts going up to September 2016 in the case of Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 42224/11, § 72, 9 May 2017).

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  According to the Court's case-law (see among other authorities, Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 142, ECHR 2005-VI), such interference constitutes a measure of control of the use of property which falls to be examined under the second paragraph of that Article.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2, and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 200, 22 May 2012).

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII) and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  Reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova, and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, 23 February 2016).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2, and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim or aims (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 179, ECHR 2000-IV; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 200, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  The Court also found in subsequent cases concerning the Transdniestrian region that up until September 2016 (Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 72, 9 May 2017), the "MRT" was only able to continue to exist, and to resist Moldovan and international efforts to resolve the conflict and bring democracy and the rule of law to the region, because of Russian military, economic and political support (see Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia no. 23687/05, §§ 116-120, 15 November 2011; Catan and Others, cited above, §§ 121-122; and Mozer, cited above, §§ 108 and 110).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  In the light of the above, the Court considers that the conclusions reached in Mozer and Eriomenco are valid in the present case too and that the "MRT" courts could not qualify as a "tribunal established by law" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Vardanean, cited above, § 39, and Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 57, 30 May 2017).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  BOBEICO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 43176/13

  The Court recalls that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in the cases of Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121) and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 33519/15

  URUSBIEV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of the Court's case-law: a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the unlawful conviction of an individual by the "MRT courts" (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, §§ 119-32); a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with regard to an unlawful home search and the seizure of personal belongings (see Vardanean v. Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 22200/10, §§ 50-57, 30 May 2017); a violation of Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the surveillance of communications with a lawyer (see Alimpiev v. Republic of Moldova and Russia, [Committee], no. 48802/08, §§ 58-62, 27 April 2021); a violation of Article 8 with regard to the impossibility of returning home (see Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 252-61, ECHR 2015, and, mutatis mutandis, Cravcişin v. the Republic of Moldovan and Russia [Committee], no. 43176/13, §§ 43-47, 28 September 2021); a violation of Article 10 of the Convention with regard to restrictions on journalists' right to freedom of expression (see Coliban v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 5216/13, §§ 63-68, 30 November 2021); a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with other provisions as listed in the appended table with regard to the absence of effective domestic remedies in the "MRT" (see Mozer, cited above, §§ 207-18); and a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention with regard to entry bans issued by "MRT" authorities (see Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 41660/10 and 5 others, §§ 90-99, 3 September 2019).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  ALIYEVLER v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court notes that the applicants were tenants in the flat in question and therefore considers that their claim for its value is not supported by any convincing evidence (see Prokopovich, cited above, § 49; see also, for illustration purposes, Cravcisin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 43176/13, § 51, 28 September 2021).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 33842/10

  DENISENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  In so far as the lawfulness of the interference is concerned, no elements in the present case allow the Court to consider that there was a legal basis for interfering with the rights of the applicant guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see also Turturica and Casian v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 28648/06 and 18832/07, § 49, 30 August 2016; Babchin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, [Committee] no. 55698/14, § 74, 17 September 2019; Cravcisin v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, [Committee] no. 43176/13, 28 September 2021).