Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  COLIBAN 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)

  COLIBAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 1, Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  The Court notes that the parties in the present case maintain views on the issue 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 and 2 others, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and in Mozer (cited above, §§ 81-95).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  The relevant materials have been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, 23 February 2016).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  The Court also found in subsequent cases concerning the Transdniestrian region that up until at least 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, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  The Court has already had the occasion to examine the conditions of detention in the "MRT" (see among others, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180-182; Eriomenco, cited above, §§ 55-56; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 42, 30 May 2017) and concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  The Court considers that Moldovan authorities did not have any real means of improving the conditions of detention in the "MRT" prisons, nor could they move the applicant to other prisons or release him from the "MRT" prisons (see, a contrario, Pocasovschi and Mihaila v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 1089/09, § 46, 29 May 2018).
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  The Court also found in subsequent cases concerning the Transdniestrian region that up until at least 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, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  MANGIR AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  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, 02.07.2019 - 48108/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 5216/13

  The relevant case-law of the Court was cited in Beşleagă v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 48108/07, § 57, 2 July 2019).

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).