Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  In Bouamar v. Belgium, (judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 60), the Court held that it was essential not only that the individual concerned should have the opportunity to be heard in person but that he should also have the effective assistance of his lawyer.
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  The guarantees provided in Article 6 concerning access to a lawyer have been found to be applicable in habeas corpus proceedings (see for example Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 60).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  Indeed, if a lawyer were unable to confer with his client and receive confidential instructions from him without surveillance, his assistance would lose much of its usefulness, whereas the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see, inter alia, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  The Court recalls that it has previously held that confidential communication with one's lawyer is protected by the Convention as an important safeguard of one's right to defence (see, for instance, Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, § 46 and Recommendation Rec(2006)2 (see paragraph 31 above)).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  Article 6 has been found to have some application at the pre-trial stage (see, for instance, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36, and John Murray v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 1996, Reports, 1996-I, p. 54, § 62) during which the review of the lawfulness of pre-trial detention typically takes place.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed 'special diligence' in the conduct of the proceedings" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  The Court recalls that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Sarban, cited above, §§ 75 et seq.).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  In case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1(c) a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Assenov and Others, cited above, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51; and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  In case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1(c) a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Assenov and Others, cited above, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51; and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 67263/01

  AFFAIRES MOUISEL ET HENAF CONTRE LA FRANCE

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, §§ 97 et seq., 27 March 2007).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  MANDIC AND JOVIC v. SLOVENIA

  While it is aware of the fact that the overcrowding could adversely affect services within the prison, including the security system and health care, the Court cannot ignore that the applicants failed to provide any information about any incident involving violence or the threat of violence which might have affected them, nor did they give details of any inadequately answered need for medical or psychological assistance, either on a regular basis or in an emergency (see, for example, Visloguzov, cited above, §§ 48-9; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 49, 27 March 2007; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 105, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour rappelle s'être penchée à de multiples reprises sur la question de savoir si les voies de recours internes garantissaient une réparation effective des violations de la Convention résultant des mauvaises conditions de détention en République de Moldova (Sarban c. Moldova, no 3456/05, §§ 57-62, 4 octobre 2005, Holomiov c. Moldova, no 30649/05, §§ 101-107, 7 novembre 2006, Istratii et autres c. Moldova, nos 8721/05, 8705/05 et 8742/05, § 38, 27 mars 2007, Modarca c. Moldova, no 14437/05, § 47, 10 mai 2007, Stepuleac c. Moldova, no 8207/06, § 46, 6 novembre 2007, Mitrofan c. République de Moldova, no 50054/07, §§ 32 et 33, 15 janvier 2013, et Segheti, précité, § 22).

 
• EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 31720/02

  TITARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Handcuffing of the applicant gave rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a situation where no serious risks to security could be proved to exist (see Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, §§ 51 and 56, ECHR 2003-XI; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, §§ 57 and 58, 27 March 2007).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Thus, handcuffing the applicant in a private setting still gave rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a situation where no serious risks to security could be proved to exist (see Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, §§ 51 and 56, ECHR 2003-XI; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, §§ 57 and 58, 27 March 2007).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  STRUCL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  This also applies to the applicant Mr Strucl's allegations concerning a lack of an adequate response to his alleged suicidal tendencies, in respect of which the applicant provided no details (see, for example, Visloguzov, cited above, §§ 48-9; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 49, 27 March 2007; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 105 and 110, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 14609/10

  MIRCEA DUMITRESCU v. ROMANIA

  The Court recalls that State's obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty has been interpreted as including an obligation to provide them with the requisite medical assistance (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Istratii and Others v. Moldova, no. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 49, 27 March 2007).
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 5767/10

  MESIC v. SLOVENIA

  8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 49, 27 March 2007; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 105, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 19213/04

  TSYGONIY v. UKRAINE

  8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 71, 27 March 2007), the Court finds that the conditions of the applicant's detention were inhuman and degrading.
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 6682/10

  FERENC v. SLOVENIA

  8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 49, 27 March 2007; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 105, ECHR 2001-VIII).