Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRAMAREVA v. RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 3932/02

  BATSANINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  The Court's practice in cases against Russia 35. In cases against Russia, the Court, following the established general principles, has considered that the mere fact that a prosecutor participated in civil proceedings cannot as such give rise to an issue under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Chernysheva v. Russia (dec.), no. 77062/01, 10 June 2004) and that the fact that a similar point of view is defended before a court by several parties does not necessarily place the opposing party in a position of "substantial disadvantage" when presenting his or her case (see Korolev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 5447/03, § 30, 1 April 2010, and Batsanina v. Russia, no. 3932/02, § 25, 26 May 2009).

  Nor is there any doubt that in the present case there were no special circumstances, such as the protection of vulnerable persons unable to defend their own interests, which would justify a prosecutor's participation in the proceedings (see Batsanina v. Russia, no. 3932/02, § 27, 26 May 2009, and Gruba and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 42454/02

  MENCHINSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  In Menchinskaya v. Russia (no. 42454/02, § 39, 15 January 2009) the Court, referring to the above-mentioned recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly and the opinion of the Venice Commission (see paragraphs 20 and 22 above), concluded that the prosecutor's intervention in the appeal proceedings undermined the principle of equality of arms, particularly owing to the fact that only the prosecutor, but not the parties, had submitted arguments orally before the appeal court.

  In addition, the Court, though referring to the relevant recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly and the opinion of the Venice Commission, as well as to the relevant judgment, namely Menchinskaya v. Russia (no. 42454/02, § 39, 15 January 2009), which endorsed those instruments and concluded that the prosecutor's intervention in appeal proceedings had undermined the principle of equality of arms (see paragraphs 20, 21 and 36-37 of the judgment), nevertheless ultimately overlooked them.

• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 66180/09

  GRUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  Recently the general approach of the above judgments has been followed in the case of Gruba and Others v. Russia (nos. 66180/09 and 3 others, §§ 96-99, 6 July 2021).

  66180/09 and 3 others, §§ 96-99, 6 July 2021, also referred to in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment, respectively).

 
• EGMR, 10.06.2004 - 77062/01

  CHERNYSHEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  The Court's practice in cases against Russia 35. In cases against Russia, the Court, following the established general principles, has considered that the mere fact that a prosecutor participated in civil proceedings cannot as such give rise to an issue under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Chernysheva v. Russia (dec.), no. 77062/01, 10 June 2004) and that the fact that a similar point of view is defended before a court by several parties does not necessarily place the opposing party in a position of "substantial disadvantage" when presenting his or her case (see Korolev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 5447/03, § 30, 1 April 2010, and Batsanina v. Russia, no. 3932/02, § 25, 26 May 2009).

  Despite the above contrary case-law of the Grand Chamber - which in my view reflects the case-law at present and also applies to such interventions at a court's hearings - the Court in the present case has mainly based its judgment on a decision of the First Section of the Court, namely Chernysheva v. Russia ((dec.), no. 77062/01, 10 June 2004), to support its view that the fact that a prosecutor participated in civil proceedings cannot as such give rise to an issue under Article 6. However, the Court in the present case has overlooked the fact that in Chernysheva the public prosecutor was a plaintiff in civil defamation proceedings and not a third party joining a dispute between two private parties, as the prosecutor did in the present case.

• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98

  KRESS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  It requires "a fair balance between the parties": each party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see, among other authorities, Yvon v. France, no. 44962/98, § 31, ECHR 2003-V, and Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 72, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 44962/98

  YVON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  It requires "a fair balance between the parties": each party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see, among other authorities, Yvon v. France, no. 44962/98, § 31, ECHR 2003-V, and Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 72, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 26402/17

  MANZANO DIAZ c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  Nothing proves that in doing so the prosecutor acted as the applicant's adversary in the proceedings or acted ultra vires in securing public interest (see similarly Manzano Diaz v. Belgium, no. 26402/17, §§ 43-44, 18 May 2021).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 39832/98

  TODOROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  In this connection, the Court has considered that the mere fact that such an officer participated in the proceedings cannot as such give rise to an issue under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Todorov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39832/98, 14 March 2002) and that the fact that a similar point of view is defended before a court by several parties does not necessarily place the opposing party in a position of "substantial disadvantage" when presenting his or her case (see Yvon, cited above, § 32).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  The Court's practice in cases against Russia 35. In cases against Russia, the Court, following the established general principles, has considered that the mere fact that a prosecutor participated in civil proceedings cannot as such give rise to an issue under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Chernysheva v. Russia (dec.), no. 77062/01, 10 June 2004) and that the fact that a similar point of view is defended before a court by several parties does not necessarily place the opposing party in a position of "substantial disadvantage" when presenting his or her case (see Korolev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 5447/03, § 30, 1 April 2010, and Batsanina v. Russia, no. 3932/02, § 25, 26 May 2009).