Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  Under the Court's case-law, the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention will be violated if a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before his guilt has been proven according to law (see, among other authorities, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308, and Velyo Velev v. Bulgaria, no. 16032/07, § 46, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9043/05

  NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  The question whether a statement by a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances of the specific case (see Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, § 103, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Lolov and Others, cited above, § 63).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  In view of the circumstances of the case and the exact words uttered, the Court is satisfied that the statement at issue went beyond a comment on relevant factual developments or an explanation that a person had been suspected of having committed criminal offences (see, mutatis mutandis, Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 200, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10, § 70, 31 March 2016): it could give the audience the impression that the applicant had undoubtedly committed an armed robbery, shot at police officers, taken a car and kidnapped the people in it.

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99

  SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  The Government relied in particular on the Court's findings in the case of Sanles Sanles v. Spain ((dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 48297/99

  BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  The Court has come to similar conclusions in many earlier cases, including against Bulgaria, finding a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see, among others, Gutsanovi, § 201; Alexey Petrov, § 74: and Maslarova, § 46, all cited above; Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); and Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10, § 46, 31 March 2016).
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02

  THÉVENON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  In a number of other cases where applicants had died in the course of the proceedings before it, the Court, in examining whether their heirs or close family members had standing to pursue the proceedings, also referred to the transferability or not of the rights which were at stake (see, for example, Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; Angelov and Angelova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 16510/06, 7 December 2010; Bittó and Others v. Slovakia, no. 30255/09, § 74, 28 January 2014).
• EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 55080/13

  PROVENZANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  However, in more recent cases relating to situations in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings before it, the Court has held that the decisive point was not whether the rights in question were or were not transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the proceedings, but whether the heirs could in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application (see Ergezen, cited above, § 29; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, § 68, 15 December 2015; and Provenzano v. Italy, no. 55080/13, § 96, 25 October 2018).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  IVKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  However, in more recent cases relating to situations in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings before it, the Court has held that the decisive point was not whether the rights in question were or were not transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the proceedings, but whether the heirs could in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application (see Ergezen, cited above, § 29; Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, § 68, 15 December 2015; and Provenzano v. Italy, no. 55080/13, § 96, 25 October 2018).
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 30336/10

  ALEXEY PETROV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  In view of the circumstances of the case and the exact words uttered, the Court is satisfied that the statement at issue went beyond a comment on relevant factual developments or an explanation that a person had been suspected of having committed criminal offences (see, mutatis mutandis, Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 200, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10, § 70, 31 March 2016): it could give the audience the impression that the applicant had undoubtedly committed an armed robbery, shot at police officers, taken a car and kidnapped the people in it.
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 45773/10

  PETROV ET IVANOVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  The Court has come to similar conclusions in many earlier cases, including against Bulgaria, finding a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see, among others, Gutsanovi, § 201; Alexey Petrov, § 74: and Maslarova, § 46, all cited above; Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); and Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10, § 46, 31 March 2016).
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 16510/06

  ANGELOV AND ANGELOVA v. BULGARIA