Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN OFFEREN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 19581/04

  The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by this provision, will be violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law (see Deweer v Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 56; and Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, § 37).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 19581/04

  Furthermore, 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, § 35).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 19581/04

  The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by this provision, will be violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law (see Deweer v Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 56; and Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, § 37).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 19581/04

  In certain instances, the Court has also found this provision applicable to judicial decisions taken following an acquittal (see Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, § 22; Asan Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, § 27, 21 March 2000; and Lamanna v. Austria, no. 28923/95, 10 July 2001).).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 30810/03

  GEERINGS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The case was similar, in its essentials, to Van Offeren v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005.

  The Court has in a number of cases been prepared to treat confiscation proceedings following on from a conviction as part of the sentencing process and therefore as beyond the scope of Article 6 § 2 (see, in particular, Phillips, cited above, § 34, and Van Offeren v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005).

• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  VARVARA c. ITALIE

  See Van Offeren v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005, where the applicant had had to pay the EUR 162, 026.31 confiscated, on threat of an eighteen-month prison sentence if he failed to pay the confiscated sum; Waldemar Nowakowski v. Poland, no. 55167/11, §§ 51-58, 24 June 2012; and, in a similar case in which a demolition order had been issued in respect of a suspect acquitted following criminal proceedings, Saliba v. Malta (dec.), no. 4251/02, 23 November 2004.
• EGMR, 08.07.2025 - 59494/09

  [ENG]

  Lord Phillips considered that this proposition was inconsistent with the Court's earlier cases of Phillips (cited above) and Van Offeren v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005) and could not properly be derived from Geerings, which did not purport to depart from those earlier decisions.

  Relying on the Court's case-law (in particular, Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, §§ 32-34, ECHR 2001-VII, Van Offeren v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005, Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom, nos.

• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 25092/12

  GALE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Lord Phillips considered that this proposition was inconsistent with the Court's earlier cases of Phillips v. the United Kingdom (no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII) and Van Offeren v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005) and could not properly be derived from Geerings, which did not purport to depart from those earlier decisions.

  Rn. 80 Similarly, in Van Offeren v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005) the Court treated confiscation proceedings following on from a conviction as part of the sentencing process and therefore not involving the bringing of any new "charge" within the meaning of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 50705/11

  TODOROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Once an accused has properly been proved guilty of that offence, Article 6 § 2 can have no application in relation to allegations made about the accused's character and conduct as part of the sentencing or an analogous process (see Van Offeren v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005), unless such accusations are of such a nature and degree as to amount to the bringing of a new "charge" within the autonomous Convention meaning referred to above (see Phillips, cited above, § 35).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 38977/15

  SOFIA v. SAN MARINO

  The Court has in a number of cases been prepared to treat confiscation proceedings following on from a conviction as part of the sentencing process and therefore as beyond the scope of Article 6 § 2 (see, in particular, Phillips, cited above, § 34, and Van Offeren v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 08.07.2025 - 54241/12

  BAGNALL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In Van Offeren v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005) the applicant had been convicted of having transported cocaine, of having held about 640 grams of cocaine, of having held - in preparation of drug offences - about 535 grams of a substance [mannitol] destined to dilute cocaine, of having unlawfully held firearms and ammunition, and of social security fraud.
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 33898/15

  VANNUCCI v. SAN MARINO

  The Court reiterates that in a number of cases it has treated confiscation proceedings following on from a conviction as part of the sentencing process and therefore as beyond the scope of Article 6 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 36, ECHR 2001-VII, and Van Offeren v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, ECHR 2005).
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 58671/12

  KOLI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Rn. 49 Similarly, in Van Offeren v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005) the Court treated confiscation proceedings following on from a conviction as part of the sentencing process and therefore as not involving the bringing of any new "charge" within the meaning of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 51757/12

  SHARMA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  19955/05 and 15085/06, 23 September 2008; and Van Offeren v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19581/04, 5 July 2005).