Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GOLUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Art. 1, Art. 4 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (21)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12

  CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court has previously examined situations in which the applicants were said to have waived their rights under the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 128, 4 April 2018 in respect of Article 6 of the Convention; Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 103-110, 5 July 2016 in respect of Article 5 of the Convention; Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court reiterates that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees to any person a right to liberty of movement within a given territory and the right to leave that territory, which implies the right to travel to a country of the person's choice to which he or she may be admitted (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 64, 11 July 2013; Berkovich and Others, cited above, § 78; and Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court reiterates that Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 guarantees to any person a right to liberty of movement within a given territory and the right to leave that territory, which implies the right to travel to a country of the person's choice to which he or she may be admitted (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; Khlyustov v. Russia, no. 28975/05, § 64, 11 July 2013; Berkovich and Others, cited above, § 78; and Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 5871/07

  BERKOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  5871/07 and 9 others, § 97, 27 March 2018 in respect of Article 2 of Protocol No. 2 to the Convention).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  DOBROVITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  41660/10 and 5 others, § 94, 3 September 2019).
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court considers that Moldovan authorities did not have any real means of guaranteeing the applicant's freedom of movement in the "MRT" territory (see, a contrario, Pocasovschi and Mihaila v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 1089/09, § 46, 29 May 2018).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  MANGIR AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  The Court sees no reasons to depart from that conclusion in the present case (Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 71, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

  SOLTYSYAK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  Even though the rights of military personnel may, in certain circumstances, be restricted to a greater degree than would be permissible in the case of civilians, such a restriction must in all cases be capable of achieving its protective function (see Berkovich and Others, cited above, § 97; Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, § 53, 10 February 2011, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  In order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39; and Riera Blume and Others v. Spain, no. 37680/97, § 28, ECHR 1999-VII; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  In order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39; and Riera Blume and Others v. Spain, no. 37680/97, § 28, ECHR 1999-VII; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017).
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  Stummer v. Austria
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31950/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 37680/97

  Riera Blume u.a. ./. Spanien
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  BOBEICO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 74433/11

  ASLANIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14

  EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen

  55762/00 and 55974/00, § 49, ECHR 2005-XII; and Golub v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([Committee], no. 48020/12, §§ 60 and 62, 30 November 2021; and, in the context of the right to leave the country, Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, § 78, 25 January 2007, and Shioshvili and Others v. Russia, no. 19356/07, § 61, 20 December 2016).

  [9] Further to these cases, in Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([Committee], nos. 41660/10 8064/11, 25197/11, 6151/12, 28972/13 and 29182/14, 3 September 2019) and Golub v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([Committee], no. 48020/12, § 57, 30 November 2021)) concerning allegations under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the Court held that the orders by the "MRT" authorities prohibiting the applicants from leavingthe "MRT" territory had not been carried out in accordance with Moldovan law and, accordingly, had been unlawful.

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 147 Within the particular context of the Transnistrian region, the Court has examined so far only restrictions on travel outside the region imposed by acts undertaken by the de facto "MRT agents" (see Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], nos. 41660/10 and 5 others, § 94, 3 September 2019, and Golub v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 48020/12, 30 November 2021).
• EGMR - 31359/18 (anhängig)

  KRUGLOVA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 27 other applications

  (c) In application no. 44744/20, did the applicant's forced conscription into the "MRT army" constitute a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see, Golub v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [Committee], no. 48020/12, § 47, 30 November 2021)?.