Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RINGVOLD c. NORVEGE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-2 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RINGVOLD v. NORWAY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-2 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.09.2001 - 34964/97
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 34964/97

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 34964/97

  The applicant invited the Court to treat his case as similar to that of Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), in which it had attached primary weight to the degree of linkage between the criminal proceedings and the compensation case in its finding that Article 6 § 2 was applicable to the latter.

  It seems clear to me that the right to presumption of innocence may continue to apply even after the criminal action has been terminated or the accused has been acquitted, as the Court has held on many occasions, for example in the cases of Minelli v. Switzerland (judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), Rushiti v. Austria (no. 28389/95, 21 March 2000) or indeed O. v. Norway, Hammern v. Norway and Y. v. Norway (judgments delivered on the same date as the present judgment).

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 34964/97

  In certain instances, the Court has also found the provision applicable to judicial decisions taken after the discontinuation of such proceedings (see in particular the following judgments: Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, and Lutz, Englert and Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123), or following an acquittal (see Sekanina, Rushiti and Lamanna, cited above).

  It seems clear to me that the right to presumption of innocence may continue to apply even after the criminal action has been terminated or the accused has been acquitted, as the Court has held on many occasions, for example in the cases of Minelli v. Switzerland (judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), Rushiti v. Austria (no. 28389/95, 21 March 2000) or indeed O. v. Norway, Hammern v. Norway and Y. v. Norway (judgments delivered on the same date as the present judgment).

• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 34964/97

  To that end, "the right to the presumption of innocence is binding not only on the criminal courts trying a case but also on courts which are not directly involved in determining the criminal charge" (see Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, opinion of the Commission, p. 38, § 85).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 34964/97

  Moreover, the scope of Article 6 § 2 is not limited to criminal proceedings that are pending (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, § 35).

• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 31283/04

  ORR v. NORWAY

  This judgment was rendered after the guiding judgments by the European Court of 11 February 2003 in Y. v. Norway [cited above] and Ringvold v. Norway [no. 34964/97, ECHR 2003-II].

  However, in a landmark ruling of 1996 concerning civil liability for forced sexual intercourse (Norsk Retstidende 1996, p. 864, at p. 876; Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, §§ 16-19, ECHR 2003-II) the Norwegian Supreme Court held that the requirement as to the strength of the evidence had to be stricter than that which applied to the test of the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the burden which an allegation of reprehensible conduct might have for the defendant and the serious consequences it might have for his or her reputation.

  The Court will examine the applicant's complaint in the light of the principles enunciated in its case-law (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; and Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39 ECHR 2003-II (extracts) and its application of those principles in those cases (see respectively at paragraphs 37-42 and 40-47 of the said judgments).

  It referred especially to the guiding, as it called them, judgments of this Court in Y v. Norway, (no. 56568/00, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)) and Ringvold v. Norway, (no. 34964/97, ECHR 2003-II), both decided a year earlier, in which it was held that both the procedural and the evidentiary parts of the Norwegian system were not incompatible with Article 6 § 2.

• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27473/11

  N.A. v. NORWAY

  However, in a landmark ruling of 1996 concerning civil liability for forced sexual intercourse (Rt. 1996, p. 864, at p. 876; Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, §§ 16-19, ECHR 2003-II) the Norwegian Supreme Court held that the requirement as to the strength of the evidence had to be stricter than that which applied to the test of the balance of probabilities, bearing in mind the burden which an allegation of reprehensible conduct might have for the defendant and the serious consequences it might have for his or her reputation.

  In the light of the separate opinions produced by in previous similar cases Judges Costa and Tulkens (Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, ECHR 2003-II) and Judge Gaetano (Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013), in which they expressed serious doubts and concerns about the non-applicability of the presumption of innocence in civil compensation proceedings, it would appear that the issue of legal methodology has still not been resolved in a manner compatible with the rule of law.

• EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07

  LAGARDÈRE c. FRANCE

  In such cases it examines whether the compensation proceedings in the particular case gave rise to a "criminal charge" against the applicant and, in the event that this was not the case, whether the compensation case was nevertheless linked to the criminal trial in such a way as to fall within the scope of Article 6 § 2 (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II, and Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, Reports 2003-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69037/01

  ARAC contre la TURQUIE

  Toutefois, la Cour souligne que ces jugements portent sur des mesures qui ont été considérées comme étant une conséquence et concomitantes aux poursuites pénales (voir, en ce sens, Ringvold c. Norvège, no 34964/97, §§ 36-41, CEDH 2003-II).