Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALIMPIEV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (Russia);Violation of ...

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 48802/08

  The Court notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012) and Mozer (cited above, §§ 81-95).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 48802/08

  The relevant material has been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 48802/08

  The Court reiterates its finding that "... holding a person in a metal cage during a trial constitutes in itself - having regard to its objectively degrading nature which is incompatible with the standards of civilised behaviour that are the hallmark of a democratic society - an affront to human dignity in breach of Article 3" (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 138, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 48802/08

  The Court has already had occasion to find that the Republic of Moldova did not breach its positive obligations owing to an applicant's failure to inform the Moldovan authorities of the alleged violations of his Convention rights by the "MRT" authorities (see Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 46, 30 May 2017), and has declared an application against the Republic of Moldova inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies by not informing the Moldovan authorities (see Bondarenco v. the Republic of Moldova (dec), no. 58144/09, §§ 13-17, 18 September 2018).
• KAG Freiburg, 20.04.2009 - 8/09

  Freistellungsanspruch für Seminarteilnahme

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 48802/08

  Censor (signature), 8/09/2008".
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 58144/09

  BONDARENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2021 - 48802/08

  The Court has already had occasion to find that the Republic of Moldova did not breach its positive obligations owing to an applicant's failure to inform the Moldovan authorities of the alleged violations of his Convention rights by the "MRT" authorities (see Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 46, 30 May 2017), and has declared an application against the Republic of Moldova inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies by not informing the Moldovan authorities (see Bondarenco v. the Republic of Moldova (dec), no. 58144/09, §§ 13-17, 18 September 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, 13.07.2021 - 767/12

  SHAPOVAL v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that the applicant's allegations had not been disputed and that the censorship of correspondence in the "MRT" prisons has already been established (Ivanţoc and Others, cited above, §§ 140-143; Braga, cited above, § 65; Mîrca v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 7845/06, § 76, 27 April 2021; Alimpiev v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 48802/08, § 61, 27 April 2021).