Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,21976
EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,21976)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.07.2004 - 48787/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,21976)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Juli 2004 - 48787/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,21976)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,21976) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2005, 1849
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (107)

  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

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

    The text of Article 1 requires States Parties to answer for any infringement of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention committed against individuals placed under their "jurisdiction" (see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 311, ECHR 2004-VII).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

    IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

    Application no. 48787/99 and the Court's judgment of 8 July 2004.

    The facts concerning the background of application no. 48787/99, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the period up to late 2003, are set out in Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004-VII.

    In a judgment of 8 July 2004 in application no. 48787/99 the Grand Chamber of the Court found that both Moldova and the Russian Federation's responsibility was engaged with regard to the acts complained of and held that there had been violations of various Articles of the Convention (see below, paragraph 12).

    Nevertheless, in the Court's opinion, the Moldovan Government were under a positive obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to take the diplomatic, economic, judicial or other measures that were in their power to take and that were in accordance with international law to secure to the applicants the rights guaranteed by the Convention (Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII, §§ 330-331).

    Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the case of Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia, No. 48787/99.

    Referring to the decision in the case of Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (8 July 2003, no. 15227/03), they pointed out that in the present case, the Committee of Ministers had not yet completed the proceedings for execution of the Court's judgment in case no. 48787/99 and that the monitoring of that issue involved a dialogue between the authorities of the Russian Federation and the Council of Europe.

    Moreover, they submitted that the Court cannot deal with an application that was substantially the same as a matter that had already been examined by the Court and claimed that there were hardly any new facts in the present application compared to application no. 48787/99.

    The Court must therefore ascertain whether the present application relies on the same facts as application no. 48787/99 in the case of Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia.

    The Court notes that in its judgment of 8 July 2004 concerning application no. 48787/99, it found, inter alia, a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the applicants, and stated that "any continuation of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the three applicants would necessarily entail a serious prolongation of the violation of Article 5 found by the Court and a breach of the respondent States" obligation under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention to abide by the Court's judgment" (§ 490).

    In this context, the Court notes that in its Interim Resolution 2007(106) adopted on 12 July 2007, the Committee of Ministers decided to suspend the examination of the case Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia (application no. 48787/99) and to "resume it after the final determination of the new application [no. 23687/05] by the European Court of Human Rights".

    The Court"s assessment in application no. 48787/99.

    The Court"s assessment in application no. 48787/99.

    The applicants complained of their continued detention after the Court had delivered its judgment in the Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa case (application no. 48787/99) on 8 July 2004 and of a lack of effective remedies in this respect.

    I regret to have to express my profound disagreement with the present judgment, as I did in the Grand Chamber's Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia judgment ([GC], no. 48787/99, 8 July 2004, ECHR 2004-VII).

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 8139/09

    Othman (Abu Qatada) ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    It would be unreasonable if that applicant could not then rely on Article 5 to prevent his extradition (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, §§ 51-56, 24 March 2005; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 461-464, ECHR 2004-VII).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht