Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOBROVITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment) (Russia);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty ...

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (23)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 5349/02

  DRACI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  Given those circumstances the Court is not satisfied that the remedies referred to by the Russian Government were available and sufficient (see Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 41, 17 October 2017).

  Finally, the Court notes that the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prisons in which the applicants have been detained in the "MRT" have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia; no. 76957/01, § 37, 17 October 2017; Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 57, 9 May 2017; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 58, 17 October 2017).

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  Each of the applicants (except for Mrs Galina Samatova in application no. 8064/11) was detained by the authorities of the self-proclaimed "Moldovan Transdniestrian Republic" (the "MRT" - see for more details 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).

  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 in Mozer (cited above, §§ 81-95).

• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  At the same time, it is only in exceptional circumstances that physical ill-treatment by State agents which does not result in death may disclose a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 51, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  It considers that, given the fact that at the time of lodging their complaints all these applicants were still in detention and in the conditions complained of, this part of their applications referred to a "continuing situation" within the meaning referred to above (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 78, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  However, the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to use that means of redress (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  However, such a remedy is required only for complaints that can be regarded as "arguable" under the Convention (see De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 78, ECHR 2012, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014, and Mozer, cited above, § 207).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  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 to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła, cited above, § 94, Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 141, and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, 20 October 2016) and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła, cited above, § 94; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 93, 22 May 2012,).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014; and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, §§ 83-89, 9 July 2015).
• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  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 to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła, cited above, § 94, Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 141, and Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, 20 October 2016) and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła, cited above, § 94; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 93, 22 May 2012,).
• KAGH, 05.07.2013 - K 24/12
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 19/11

  LANG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HASTIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 11/04

  VOTTO c. ITALIE
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  [FRE]
• SG Berlin, 14.09.1955 - 15/12
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 76957/01

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14

  EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen

  [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, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  GOLUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  41660/10 and 5 others, § 94, 3 September 2019).

• 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, 19.02.2026 - 49508/15

  ZUBCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 32 Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that those complaints also disclose the following violations of the Convention in the light of the its case-law: a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to criminal convictions by the "MRT courts" (see Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia no. 22200/10, § 39, 30 May 2017); a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention with regard to entry bans issued by the "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); and a violation of Article 13 of the Convention with regard to the absence of domestic remedies (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco, cited above, § 156).
• EGMR - 2201/19 (anhängig)

  DRIUCENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 18 other applications

  54164/21, 22027/22, 40554/22, and 50411/22, has there been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention with regard to the entry/exit bans issued by the "MRT" authorities? In particular, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it "necessary in a democratic society (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

  Moreover, the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prison in which the applicant has been detained in the "MRT" have already been found to be substandard (see, for instance, Mozer, cited above, §§ 180 and 181; Braga v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 76957/01, § 37, 17 October 2017; Eriomenco, cited above, § 57; Apcov v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 13463/07, § 43, 30 May 2017; Draci v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 5349/02, § 58, 17 October 2017; Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 41660/10 and 5 others, § 53, 3 September 2019).
• EGMR, 29.06.2021 - 4711/07

  MANOLE AND POSTICA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  In the present case, the Russian Government did not specify the available remedies in respect of the applicants' complaints concerning the actions of Russian peacekeepers stationed on the territory of the Republic of Moldova (cf. Dobrovitskaya and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 41660/10 and others, § 25, 3 September 2019).