Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  Concerning the evidence, it must be noted that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among many other authorities, Schenk v. Austria, 12 July 1988, §§ 45 and 46, Series A no. 140, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  Therefore, the applicant unequivocally waived his right to be present at those hearings (see, mutatis mutandis, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 67, Series A no. 171-A, and Pauger v. Austria, 28 May 1997, § 61, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  Concerning the evidence, it must be noted that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among many other authorities, Schenk v. Austria, 12 July 1988, §§ 45 and 46, Series A no. 140, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  As regards the complaint (no. 4.4) that the Sofia City Court judgments in the two cases were not amenable to appeal, the Court observes that, according to its established case-law, Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee a right of appeal as such (see, among many other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B, and Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 48 in limine, ECHR 2004-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 21277/05

  STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  In cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of private life against the right to freedom of expression, it has always emphasised the contribution made by publications in the media to a debate of general interest (see, for instance, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 66 and 68, ECHR 2001-I; Von Hannover, cited above, § 60; and Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 46, 4 June 2009).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 28070/06

  A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  In contrast to Article 12 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 17 § 1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations, it does not expressly provide for a right to protection against "attacks" on a person's "honour and reputation" (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 63, 9 April 2009).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  Even if that period of time was more than what was permissible under domestic law, it did not render the length of the proceedings excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 37, Series A no. 71; Wiesinger v. Austria, 30 October 1991, § 60, Series A no. 213; and Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 138, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  In cases in which the Court has had to balance the protection of private life against the right to freedom of expression, it has always emphasised the contribution made by publications in the media to a debate of general interest (see, for instance, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, §§ 66 and 68, ECHR 2001-I; Von Hannover, cited above, § 60; and Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), no. 21277/05 § 46, 4 June 2009).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  WIESINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  Even if that period of time was more than what was permissible under domestic law, it did not render the length of the proceedings excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 37, Series A no. 71; Wiesinger v. Austria, 30 October 1991, § 60, Series A no. 213; and Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 138, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 25576/04

  FLINKKILÄ AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  It should be pointed out in that connection that Article 6 § 1 cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument raised by a litigant (see García Ruiz, cited above, § 26; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 37, ECHR 2009-...; and Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland, no. 25576/04, § 97, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 78060/01

  PETRINA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 20928/05

  PETRENCO v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 64772/01

  LEEMPOEL AND S.A. ED. CINE REVUE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58729/00

  ABEBERRY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 46300/99

  Recht auf faires Strafverfahren (staatliche Einflussnahme auf die Ausübung der …
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 17967/03

  STOYANOVA-TSAKOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 4591/04

  GUNNARSSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 28168/95

  QUADRELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.08.1999 - 31135/96

  SALTUK contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 45291/06

  PREVITI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97

  SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 36822/02

  BRACCI c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Bei der Ausübung seiner Kontrollbefugnis ist es nicht Aufgabe des Gerichtshofs, an die Stelle der innerstaatlichen Gerichte zu treten, sondern es obliegt ihm, im Licht aller Umstände des Falles zu prüfen, ob die von den Gerichten aufgrund ihrer Ermessensbefugnis erlassenen Entscheidungen mit den geltend gemachten Konventionsbestimmungen in Einklang stehen (…Petrenco ./. Moldau, Nr. 20928/05, Rdnr. 54, 30. März 2010; Polanco Torres und Movilla Polanco ./. Spanien, Nr. 34147/06, Rdnr. 41, 21. September 2010, und Petrov ./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Nr. 27103/04, 2. November 2010).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 39954/08

  Axel Springer AG in Art. 10 EMRK (Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung) verletzt durch …

  Bei der Ausübung seiner Kontrollbefugnis ist es nicht Aufgabe des Gerichtshofs, an die Stelle der innerstaatlichen Gerichte zu treten, sondern es obliegt ihm, im Licht aller Umstände des Falles zu prüfen, ob die von den Gerichten aufgrund ihrer Ermessensbefugnis erlassenen Entscheidungen mit den geltend gemachten Konventionsbestimmungen in Einklang stehen (…Petrenco ./. Moldau, Nr. 20928/05, Rdnr. 54, 30. März 2010;… Polanco Torres und Movilla Polanco, a.a.O., Rdnr. 41; und Petrov ./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Nr. 27103/04, 2. November 2010).

  Nach seiner in diesem Urteil zitierten ständigen Rechtsprechung (…Petrenco ./. Moldau, Nr. 20928/05, Rdnr. 54, 30. März 2010, Petrov ./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Nr. 27103/04, 2. November 2010, und Polanco Torres und Movilla Polanco ./. Spanien, Nr. 34147/06, Rdnr. 40, 21.

• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  The Court's task in exercising its supervisory function is not to take the place of the national authorities but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation can be reconciled with the Convention provisions relied upon (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 60, ECHR 1999-III; Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 41, 21 September 2010; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 4149/04

  AKSU c. TURQUIE

  The Court's task in exercising its supervision is not to take the place of the national authorities but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, the decisions that they have taken pursuant to their margin of appreciation (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 41, 21 September 2010; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2012 - 34124/06

  SCHWEIZERISCHE RADIO- UND FERNSEHGESELLSCHAFT SRG v. SWITZERLAND

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 41, 21 September 2010; Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010, and Axel Springer AG, cited above, 86).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  Given the nature of the conflicting interests, the States must be given a certain margin of appreciation in striking the appropriate balance between those rights (see A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 66, 9 April 2009, and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 59631/09

  VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH AND BOBI v. AUSTRIA

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The facts that some of the judges hearing the case ruled against them on some points or decided to proceed in a certain manner do not constitute such proof (see Sofri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 37235/97, ECHR 2003-VIII; Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 52 in limine, 13 October 2005; Previti v. Italy (dec.), no. 45291/06, § 258 in limine, 8 December 2009; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 51151/06

  KÜCHL v. AUSTRIA

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 66456/09

  RISTAMÄKI AND KORVOLA v. FINLAND

  In exercising its supervisory function, the Court's task is not to take the place of the national courts, but rather to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether the decisions they have taken pursuant to their power of appreciation are compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on (see Petrenco v. Moldova, no. 20928/05, § 54, 30 March 2010; Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco, cited above, § 41; and Petrov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 27103/04, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 6490/07

  ROTHE v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 35745/05

  NENKOVA-LALOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 29723/11

  SZIMA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 49876/07

  RODIVILOV v. UKRAINE