Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Pichugin v. Russia

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 38623/03

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  The Court found that as a result of that concealment the defence had been deprived of an opportunity through cross-examination to seriously undermine the credibility of the key witness (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, §§ 62-67, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 31657/96

  BUSCARINI contre SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  The Court reiterates that the phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a "tribunal" but also the composition of the bench in each case (see Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  Exceptions to this principle are possible but must not infringe the rights of the defence, which, as a rule, require that the accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 39, ECHR 2001-II).

 
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006-..., and B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 63486/00

  POSOKHOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  The Court reiterates that the phrase "established by law" covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a "tribunal" but also the composition of the bench in each case (see Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00

  MARTINIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006-..., and B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  In making this assessment the Court will look at the proceedings as a whole having regard to the rights of the defence but also to the interests of the public and the victims that crime is properly prosecuted and, where necessary, to the rights of witnesses (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  This is particularly true for the guarantees enshrined in Article 6, in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial with all the guarantees under that Article (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 231, 17 January 2012; Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to fulfilling the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Gautrin and Others v. France, judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, § 42, and Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, § 21).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  It is therefore required to examine whether the domestic legal rules for the appointment of judicial officers were breached and whether the applicable domestic law was itself in conformity with the Convention and notably the requirement of impartiality that appears in Article 6 § 1 (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 33, Series A no. 53).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

  O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 9154/10

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Al-Khawaja-Test; Recht auf ein …

  Er muss ferner seine eigene Würdigung des Beweiswerts der Aussage eines abwesenden Zeugen vornehmen, wenn die innerstaatlichen Gerichte ihre diesbezügliche Meinung nicht mitgeteilt haben oder diese nicht klar ist (vgl. beispielsweise Fafrowicz, a.a.O., Rdnr. 58, Pichugin./. Russland, Nr. 38623/03, Rdnrn. 196-200, 23. Oktober 2012, Tseber, a.a.O., Rdnrn. 54-56, und Nikolitsas, a.a.O., Rdnr. 36).
• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 26163/22

  AHMADLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gafgaz Mammadov, cited above, §§ 83-96; Huseynli and Others, cited above, §§ 119-24; and Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012.

  6 (1) - trial in camera - the hearing before the trial court was closed to public (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).

  6 (1) - trial in camera - the hearing before the trial court was closed to public (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).

  6 (1) - trial in camera - the hearing before the trial court was closed to public (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).

  6 (1) - trial in camera - the hearing before the trial court was closed to public (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).

• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

  Failure to fulfil this requirement will result in the individual measures to be taken in the execution of a judgment in question remaining outstanding, as follows from the Committee of Ministers" decision (CM/Del/Dec(2016)1265/H46-24), adopted at the 1265th meeting of the Ministers" Deputies on 20-21 September 2016, in relation to the execution of the Court's judgment in Pichugin v. Russia (no. 38623/03, 23 October 2012), as well as from its decision (CM/Del/Dec(2017)1294/H46-25), adopted at the 1294th meeting of the Ministers" Deputies on 19-21 September 2017, in relation to the execution of the Court's judgment in Navalnyy and Ofitserov, cited above.

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  For more details concerning the criminal proceedings against Mr Pichugin, see Pichugin v. Russia (no. 38623/03, 23 October 2012), and Pichugin v. Russia ([Committee], no. 38958/07, 6 June 2017).

  Nothing in the case file indicated that the defence encountered any obstacles to putting questions to those witnesses or obtaining answers from them (contrast Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 202, 23 October 2012, where the prosecution witness refused to answer questions put by the defence).

• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  Se référant ensuite à la jurisprudence de la Cour en matière de publicité de la procédure judiciaire (Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, § 83, 4 décembre 2008, Romanova c. Russie, précité, § 155, 11 octobre 2011, et Pichugin c. Russie, no 38623/03, § 187, 23 octobre 2012 et autres), le requérant soutient que les décisions du tribunal de première instance du 24 juin 2009 et du 19 mai 2010 portant sur l'exclusion du public des débats ne font apparaître aucune mise en balance du principe de publicité des débats et des impératifs de protection de l'ordre public et de la sécurité nationale.
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Turning to the question as to whether T.A.'s evidence was the sole or decisive evidence in the applicant's conviction or whether it carried significant weight, the Court notes that in the absence of reasons given for the jury's verdict and of any reasoning in the appeal judgment as to the weight given to T.A.'s recorded statement, it would be difficult for the Court to decide which evidence could be considered to have constituted the decisive basis for the applicant's conviction (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 196, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 66616/10

  KOHEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Neither did they complain that they had been unable to obtain their own specialist opinion or that such a report would not have had the necessary equal force to challenge the court-appointed experts (compare Matytsina, cited above, §§ 193-195), or that any such report would not have been admitted as evidence or have been assessed as such by the trial court (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 36, 23 October 2012, and compare Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev, cited above, §§ 721-723).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 9418/13

  KARTOYEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle également que, dans de nombreuses affaires, elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 après avoir constaté que les juridictions internes avaient ordonné l'exclusion du public des débats en motivant cette mesure simplement par la présence de documents classés secrets dans un dossier judiciaire ou par la nécessité d'assurer la sécurité des parties à la procédure, sans évaluer la nécessité de cette exclusion en mettant en balance le principe de la publicité des débats et les impératifs de protection de l'ordre public, de la sécurité nationale ou des intérêts de la justice (Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, §§ 79-88, 4 décembre 2008, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 152-160, 11 octobre 2011, Raks c. Russie, no 20702/04, §§ 43-51, 11 octobre 2011, Pichugin c. Russie, no 38623/03, §§ 185-192, 23 octobre 2012, Artemov c. Russie, no 14945/03, §§ 43-51, 3 avril 2014, Sheynoyev c. Russie [comité], no 65783/09, §§ 14-16, 25 septembre 2018, 1zmestyev c. Russie, no 74141/10, §§ 82-95, 27 août 2019, et Maslennikov c. Russie [comité], no 42301/11, §§ 15-31, 8 décembre 2020).
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 4261/04

  MISAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that it is incumbent on the interested party to display special diligence in the defence of his interests (see Teuschler v. Germany (dec.), no. 47636/99, 4 October 2001; Novoselov v. Russia (dec.), no. 66460/01, 8 July 2004; Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 48, 10 February 2005; and Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 179, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR - 37964/17 (anhängig)

  SHILOV v. RUSSIA and 7 othe applications

  Some of the applicants also complain about delayed review of their appeals against house-arrest or detention orders (see, mutatis mutandis, Butusov v. Russia, no. 7923/04, §§ 29 35, 22 December 2009, Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 148-56, 23 October 2012) and violation of legal certainty principle in detention proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Velichko v. Russia, no. 19664/07, §§ 61-75, 15 January 2013).
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 72444/14

  KREKHALEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 21350/19 (anhängig)

  HAKOBYAN v. ARMENIA