Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEPULEAC v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  MODARCA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  Deciding on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 12, 000 (see Modarca v. Moldova, no. 14437/05, § 103, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 73792/01

  SULTAN ÖNER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  More disturbingly, it follows from the statements of the two alleged victims that one of the complaints was fabricated and the investigating authority did not verify with him whether he had indeed made that complaint, while the other was the result of the direct influence of officer O., the same person who registered the first complaint against the applicant (see paragraph 7 above; see also Sultan Öner and Others v. Turkey, no. 73792/01, §§ 121-123, 17 October 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law on Article 3 of the Convention regarding, in particular, conditions of detention and medical assistance to detainees (see, amongst others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, §§ 76-79, 13 September 2005, and Sarban, cited above, §§ 75-77).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  While the Court was not presented with sufficient evidence that the applicant had indeed been intimidated in his cell, it considers that the State did not fulfil its positive obligation of properly investigating allegations of ill-treatment, given all the above-mentioned circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 126, ECHR 2003-V; Corsacov v. Moldova, no. 18944/02, § 68, 4 April 2006, and also paragraph 30 of the 2001 CPT report, cited in paragraph 39 above).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  In his appeal the applicant relied, inter alia, on the Convention and the Court's judgment in Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005), submitting a copy of the judgment.
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  In so far as the remedy of a civil action to request an immediate end to the alleged violation is concerned (the Drugalev case), the Court has already found that it did not constitute sufficient evidence that such a remedy was effective at the relevant time (see Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 106, 7 November 2006).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  While the Court was not presented with sufficient evidence that the applicant had indeed been intimidated in his cell, it considers that the State did not fulfil its positive obligation of properly investigating allegations of ill-treatment, given all the above-mentioned circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 126, ECHR 2003-V; Corsacov v. Moldova, no. 18944/02, § 68, 4 April 2006, and also paragraph 30 of the 2001 CPT report, cited in paragraph 39 above).
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law on Article 3 of the Convention regarding, in particular, conditions of detention and medical assistance to detainees (see, amongst others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, §§ 76-79, 13 September 2005, and Sarban, cited above, §§ 75-77).
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  In the light of the above, in particular the prosecutor's decision to include the applicant's name in the list of suspects without a statement by the victim or any other evidence pointing to him (see Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 674, 13 November 2003), as well as the prosecutor's failure to make a genuine inquiry into the basic facts, in order to verify whether the complaint was well-founded, the Court concludes that the information in its possession does not "satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence".
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 62393/00

  KADIKIS (N° 2) ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  The Court can but note the clear insufficiency of food given to the applicant, which in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see KadiÄ·is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

  The Court has already found that the clear insufficiency of food given to an applicant may in itself raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Kadiíis v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006; Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; and Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 62, 19 June 2008).
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 8138/16

  Bulgarien, minderjährig, Haftbedingungen, Rechtswegerschöpfung, Schadensersatz, …

  The final element to be taken into account is the authorities' alleged failure to provide the applicants with food and drink for more than twenty-four hours after taking them into custody (see paragraphs 20, 25 and 26 above, and see, also as regards the adequate provision of food to people in detention, KadiÄ·is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006; Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; and Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, § 141, 24 March 2016).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14150/08

  [ENG]

  Even if it had still been possible to receive parcels from the family when they visited the prison, the Court takes the view that this would have had only limited effect, since it would have been dependent on the financial and geographical situation of the family (compare and contrast, Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 182, 29 April 2003 and Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007).

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, the State is directly responsible for the well-being of persons deprived of their liberty (see Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; and KadiÄ·is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court considers that the applicant's complaint of police abuse was such as to require an effective official investigation (see paragraphs 19 and 23 above), it being noted that even where there is insufficient evidence to show that an applicant was in fact ill-treated the procedural obligation to investigate may still arise, particularly when, as in the present case, there is a potential for abuse in a detention context (see, mutatis mutandis, Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 64, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 20269/09

  [ENG]

  She referred, inter alia, to the case of Stepuleac v. Moldova (no. 8207/06, 6 November 2007), in which the Court had already found violations of Article 5 in respect of the first applicant's previous arrests.

  The Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 95-104, 4 October 2005, and Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, §§ 68-81, 6 November 2007).

• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  Thus, in the absence of any contrary allegation, it cannot be said that the applicant suffered hunger or thirst (compare and contrast KadiÄ·is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006; Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; and Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, § 141, 24 March 2016) nor that the deprivation of any other products over limited periods can be considered as a deprivation of the applicant's vital needs.
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

  GULIYEV v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the clear insufficiency of food given to an applicant may in itself raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see KadiÄ·is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006, and Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

  However, the permission to consume one's own food cannot be a substitute for appropriate catering arrangements, because it remains the State's obligation to ensure the well-being of persons deprived of their liberty (see Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; KadiÄ·is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006; Valasinas, cited above, § 109).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 37048/04

  GIORGI NIKOLAISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The Court also notes that the Government have not provided any explanation for this lack of transparency, firstly, as to why the authorities did not initiate the firearms case against the applicant as soon as they learnt of the incriminating facts and, secondly, as to why there was such urgency to arrest him on the very day of his voluntary appearance before the prosecution authority as a witness (see Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 76, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 51216/06

  ROTARU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 29226/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 28796/04

  BIVOLARU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 62631/11

  GAL v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 25285/15

  KARACA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 39584/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 17332/03

  LEVINTA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7101/06

  MALAI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

  SALMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  ALMASI v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02

  STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 42440/06

  MUSUC CONTRE MOLDOVA ET 4 AUTRES AFFAIRES
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 21061/11

  PISAROGLU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 50054/07

  MITROFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 48108/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 33200/11

  OKOLISAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 12444/05

  LEVA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 18491/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 28173/10

  SILVESTRU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13755/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43750/05

  PATRICIU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 10473/05

  CATANA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 55792/08

  FERARU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

  DARVAS v. HUNGARY