Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MANGÎR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MANGIR AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  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, ECHR 2016).

  My vote in the present case was based on my previous dissenting opinion in the case of Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, ECHR 2016) on the issue of the Russian Federation's effective control over Transdniestria.

• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention, but the remedy must in any event be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the State (Mozer, cited above, § 207; Khlaifia and Others, cited above, § 268; and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 179, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  The Court reiterates that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see Mozer, cited above, § 178; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 160 (c), ECHR 2016 (extracts); and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, ECHR 2016.
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilaşcu and Others (cited above); Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Ivanţoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011) was wrong and at variance with public international law.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  In addition, the Court observes that, while the judgment adopted by the legitimate Sukhumi court in 2008 (see paragraph 86 above) lacks practical enforceability in the absence of effective control (see paragraph 87 above), the authorities convicted the individuals found responsible for torture and illegal imprisonment of the first applicant after notice of the application had been given to the Georgian Government in 2006 (see paragraphs 80 to 88 and 231 above; and compare with Mozer, cited above, §§ 26, 52-53, and 153; Vardanean, cited above, § 42; Turturica and Casian, cited above, § 53; Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 61, 17 October 2017; Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 41, 17 July 2018; Ilaşcu and Others, cited above, § 346).
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  LYPOVCHENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court sees no reasons to depart from that conclusion in the present case (see Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 71, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 54714/17

  SVETOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  At the same time, the failure of the respondent State to participate effectively in the proceedings should not automatically lead to acceptance of the applicants' claims, and the Court must be satisfied by the available evidence that the claim is well founded in fact and law (compare with the approach taken in Cyprus v. Turkey, cited above, § 58, and Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, §§ 47-60, 17 July 2018, where one of the respondent Governments have only submitted observations on the issue of jurisdiction).

• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  GOLUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  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, 17.09.2019 - 55698/14

  BABCHIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  En l'espèce, la Cour ne voit aucune raison de parvenir à une conclusion différente (Mangîr et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 50157/06, § 71, 17 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 56618/08

  BERZAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  En l'espèce, la Cour ne voit aucune raison de parvenir à une conclusion différente (Mangîr et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie, no 50157/06, § 71, 17 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 42126/15

  O.J. v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Nevertheless, the Court cannot but note that the applicants did not submit medical certificates attesting to any physical after-effects of their detention in Abkhazia (compare Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 47, 17 July 2018 and Tanış v. Turkey (dec.), no. 15442/08, §§ 46-49, 9 February 2016).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06

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

  In the present case, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion (see Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 71, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 48145/10

  CILEI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  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, 13.07.2021 - 767/12

  SHAPOVAL v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of any submission by the respondent Government as to any remedies available to the applicant, the Court concludes that the respondent Government is responsible for the violation of Article 13, taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see Mozer, cited above, § 218; Mangîr and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 50157/06, § 72, 17 July 2018; and Eriomenco, cited above, § 98).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  COLIBAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 36545/06

  OPREA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 48841/11

  FILIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 5659/07

  COTOFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR - 59220/18 (anhängig)

  JUKOVEÈš AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 22365/10

  CAZAC AND SURCHICIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 80882/13

  UNTILOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR - 558/16 (anhängig)

  VARDIASVILI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA