Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=19.10.2012&Aktenzeichen=43370/04
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 21:46:12+00:00
Document Index: 162941722

Matched Legal Cases: ["l'article 2", "l'article 2", '§ 28', '§ 8', '§ 66', '§ 28', '§ 8', '§ 34', '§ 63', '§ 3', '§ 52', '§ 152', '§ 146', '§ 137', 'arrêt ', '§ 92', '§ 28', '§ 8', '§ 83', '§ 81', '§ 28', '§ 8', '§ 64', '§ 1', 'arrêt ', '§ 8']

EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04, 18454/06, 8252/05 - dejure.org
EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04, 18454/06, 8252/05
https://dejure.org/2012,55611
EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04, 18454/06, 8252/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,55611)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.10.2012 - 43370/04, 18454/06, 8252/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,55611)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Januar 2012 - 43370/04, 18454/06, 8252/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,55611)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55611) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-general (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education) (the Republic of Moldova) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to ...
CATAN ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
Exception préliminaire rejetée Partiellement irrecevable Non-violation de l'article 2 du Protocole n° 1 - Droit à l'instruction-général (article 2 du Protocole n° 1 - Droit à l'instruction) (République de Moldova) Violation de l'article 2 du Protocole n° 1 - ...
CATAN AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-general (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education) (the Republic of Moldova) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to ...
EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 43370/04
EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 43370/04
EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 43370/04
NVwZ 2014, 203
The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII) and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).
Following the general principles established in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, § 66, ECHR 2012), the Court noted that there is no evidence of any direct participation by Russian agents in the measures taken against the applicant.
EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 42139/12
PISARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
The facts concerning the historical background of the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-92 and the subsequent events, are set out in Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004-VII), and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).
The Moldovan Government referred to the Court's finding in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII) and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) to the effect that the Russian Federation had effective control over the territory of the breakaway region of Transdniestria and decisive influence over its authorities.
43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), was not applicable in this case.
43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, 15 June 2010, §§ 34-41 and §§ 63-72.
43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, 15 June 2010).
Pour que ce droit « produise des effets utiles, il faut encore, notamment, que l'individu qui en est titulaire ait la possibilité de tirer un bénéfice de l'enseignement suivi, c'est-à-dire le droit d'obtenir, conformément aux règles en vigueur dans chaque Etat, sous une forme ou une autre, la reconnaissance officielle des études accomplies » (Affaire « relative à certains aspects du régime linguistique de l'enseignement en Belgique », 23 juillet 1968, §§ 3-5, série A no 6 ; Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen et Pedersen c. Danemark, 7 décembre 1976, § 52, série A no 23 ; Leyla Sahin c. Turquie [GC], no 44774/98, § 152, CEDH 2005-XI, Orsus et autres, précité, § 146 et Catan et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie [GC], nos 43370/04, 8252/05 et 18454/06, § 137, 19 octobre 2012).
Cette approche contraste avec celle de la Cour adoptée dans les affaires précédentes: 4 000 EUR à chacun des requérants dans D.H. et autres c. République tchèque [GC], no 57325/00, CEDH 2007-IV ; 4 500 EUR à chacun dans Orsus et autres c. Croatie [GC], no 15766/03, CEDH 2010 ; 6 000 EUR à chacun dans Sampanis et autres c. Grèce, no 32526/05, 5 juin 2008 ; et 6 000 EUR à chacun (enfants âgés de six ans au moment des faits et parents confondus) dans le récent arrêt Catan et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie [GC], nos 43370/04, 8252/05 et 18454/06.
EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 36545/06
OPREA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
As they did in Mozer (cited above, §§ 92-94), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII), Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012) and Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011) had been wrong and at variance with public international law.
EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 41660/10
DOBROVITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
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 Ilascu 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, 30.08.2016 - 28648/06
TURTURICA AND CASIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004-VII), and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).
In Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 64-73, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) the Court summarised the content of various reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations concerning the situation in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova and the Russian military personnel and equipment stationed there between 2003 and 2009.
Moreover, Article 36 § 1 does not encompass a Member State's right to defend itself before the Court unless the applicants in their application claim to be victims of a violation of their rights by that Member State as well (see, for example, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011 and Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
Zudem ist zu beachten, dass es sich nicht um ein absolutes, notstandsfestes Recht der EMRK handelt (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 19. Oktober 2012, Catan u.a. ./. Moldova and Russia - No. 43370/04 u.a. -, HUDOC Rn. 137, 140).
EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 40942/14
IOVCEV ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
Plus de détails concernant le contexte général de l'affaire sont décrits dans l'arrêt Catan et autres c. République de Moldova et Russie ([GC], nos 43370/04 et 2 autres, §§ 8-42, CEDH 2012 (extraits)).
EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 17126/02
LIKVIDdJAMÄEUR P/S SELGA AND VASIÄ"EVSKA v. LATVIA
EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 28432/06
GRAMA AND DÎRUL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 69528/10
STOMATII c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 1089/09
POCASOVSCHI AND MIHAILA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 26626/11
PADURET v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11
ERIOMENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 57468/08
PANTELEICIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 7529/10
CANTER AND MAGALEAS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 5659/07
COTOFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 30003/04
BOBEICO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13463/07
APCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 1203/05
SOYMA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 63945/09
CAZACLIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
EGMR - 43176/13 (anhängig)
CRAVCISIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND OTHERS
EGMR - 73942/17 (anhängig)
HALABUDENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
EGMR - 56218/07
YESIPOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 11 other applications
EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 29601/05
EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 28750/11
VERSILOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
EGMR - 33567/15 (anhängig)
JESTCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 28857/14 (anhängig)
RÎBAC AND RODINA-AGRO S.A. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 83954/17 (anhängig)
MUSTEA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 63750/17 (anhängig)
V.I. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 8064/11 (anhängig)
SAMATOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 33446/11 (anhängig)
MITUL AND COTOFAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 29182/14 (anhängig)
BESLEAGA AND BEVZIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 6151/12 (anhängig)
PETIS AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 75813/12 (anhängig)
SCHIDU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 45464/13 (anhängig)
SCVARCENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE
EGMR - 3020/13 (anhängig)
POGORLETCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 46367/10 (anhängig)
CEBOTAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 33694/12 (anhängig)
REZANOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
EGMR - 8833/10 (anhängig)
TOTCHI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
EGMR - 7845/06
MIRCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA and 2 other applications
EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 58144/09
BONDARENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA