Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LYPOVCHENKO AND HALABUDENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione loci;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LYPOVCHENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 1, Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).

  In the absence of any information attesting to a change to the situation found in its previous judgments, the Court sees no grounds on which to distinguish the present case from Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-II), Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] (nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), Mozer (cited above) and Eriomenco (cited above), and concludes that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction.

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  Rn. 47 A number of items of relevant material have been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC] (no. 11138/10, §§ 61-77, 23 February 2016).

  Rn. 73 The Court notes that it has considered the Russian Government's objections of inadmissibility ratione loci and ratione temporis in previous cases and rejected them (Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 111, 23 February 2016, and Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 47, 9 May 2017).

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  According to the Court's case-law (see among other authorities, Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 142, ECHR 2005-VI), such interference constitutes a measure of control of the use of property that falls to be examined under the second paragraph of that Article.

• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  Rn. 125 The same test was applied by the Court in its recent judgment Mamasakhlisi and Others v. Georgia and Russia (nos. 29999/04 and 41424/04, 7 March 2023), which concerned the legal and court system in the unrecognised entity of Abkhazia in Georgia.
• EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 56588/07

  STAPLETON v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  In Stapleton v. Ireland ((dec.) no. 56588/07, § 33, 4 May 2010), after concluding that the applicant's extradition to the United Kingdom would not have violated his rights under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court found that there was no issue under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in relation to the applicant's self-imposed decision to reside outside Ireland in order to avoid that extradition.
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 22200/10

  VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  Similar objections were raised and dismissed in the cases of Mozer (cited above, §§ 115-121), Vardanean v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 22200/10, §§ 27 and 31, 30 May 2017), and Bobeico and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 30003/04, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07

  APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  Rn. 110 Moreover, the conditions of detention prevailing in the same prisons in which the applicant was 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; and Draci, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  As to the State's obligation to ensure respect for the applicant's rights, the Court considers that Moldovan authorities did not have any real means of securing the applicant release from the "MRT"'s prisons (contrast 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, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  Rn. 73 The Court notes that it has considered the Russian Government's objections of inadmissibility ratione loci and ratione temporis in previous cases and rejected them (Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 111, 23 February 2016, and Eriomenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, no. 42224/11, § 47, 9 May 2017).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10

  DOBROVITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 40926/16

  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, 17.07.2018 - 50157/06

  MANGIR AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 5349/02

  DRACI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 48020/12

  GOLUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 69086/14

  MACHINA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06

  TURTURICA IURIE v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 76957/01

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04

  BOBEICO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 17912/15

  KUTAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2019 - 40296/16

  P. v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.09.2026 - 45849/20
  The Court considers that the forfeiture and freezing of funds constituted measures of control of the use of the applicant's property and fall to be examined under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, § 137, 20 February 2024).
• EGMR, 21.05.2026 - 63750/17

  V.I. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 9 The relevant material has been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-67, 23 February 2016), and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 48-67, 20 February 2024).
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 33519/15

  URUSBIEV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 4 The relevant material has been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-67, 23 February 2016) and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 48-67, 20 February 2024).

• EGMR - 31359/18 (anhängig)

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

  In all applications, do the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in the cases of Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 85-87, 20 February 2024), and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 99-111, 23 February 2016), on account of the circumstances of the present cases?.
• EGMR - 2201/19 (anhängig)

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

  In all applications, given the circumstances of the present cases, do the applicants come within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in the cases of Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 85-87, 20 February 2024) and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 99-111, 23 February 2016)?.
• EGMR, 19.02.2026 - 49508/15

  ZUBCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Rn. 4 The relevant material has been summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 61-67, 23 February 2016) and Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 48-67, 20 February 2024).
• EGMR - 28944/22 (anhängig)

  SAADOUNE v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 123-32, 20 February 2024)?.
• EGMR - 2827/21 (anhängig)

  VASILACHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  f Moldova and/or Russia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court in Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 85-87, 20 February 2024) and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 99-111, 23 February 2016), on account of the circumstances of the present case?.
• EGMR - 34157/20 (anhängig)

  KUZMENKO v. RUSSIA

  Does the applicant come within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention as interpreted by the Court in the cases of Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, §§ 85-87, 20 February 2024) and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 99-111, 23 February 2016), on account of the circumstances of the present case?.
• EGMR - 32326/20 (anhängig)

  SAVIŢCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Has the applicant raised in substance a complaint about the State's failure to observe positive obligations under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? If so, did the State have a positive obligation to protect the applicant's freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention and, accordingly, did the State discharge their positive obligation under that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17, § 150, 20 February 2024)?.
• EGMR - 9552/22 (anhängig)

  CIORBA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA