Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOCHAN c. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-lieu à examiner P1-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Dommage matériel - demande rejetée (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02
• EGMR, 09.09.2020 - 7577/02

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02

  The Court recalls at the outset that judicial systems characterised by the supervisory review procedure which allowed a judicial decision which had become final and binding to be quashed by a higher court on an application (protest) made by a State official were incompatible with the principle of legal certainty that is one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-VII, Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-VII, and Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 66, 24 July 2003).

  The Court considers that this overall procedural situation also disturbed the principle of legal certainty (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2003-IX).

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02

  The Court further recalls that, although the right to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses is guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention to those who are charged with a criminal offence, Article 6 § 1 does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed in civil cases, leaving these matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, among other authorities, Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 51394/99

  VOLOSHCHUK contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02

  However, the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings as in the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis, Voloshchuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 51394/99, 14 October 2003, and Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).

 
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01

  SARDINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02

  However, the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings as in the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis, Voloshchuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 51394/99, 14 October 2003, and Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02

  Nevertheless, the Court notes that the provisions of Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law in that these principles are enshrined in the general notion of a fair trial as embodied in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, §§ 32-35, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, § 30).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7577/02

  Nevertheless, the Court notes that the provisions of Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law in that these principles are enshrined in the general notion of a fair trial as embodied in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, §§ 32-35, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, § 30).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 04.03.2021 - C-811/19

  FQ u.a.

  29 Der Rechtsmittelführer beruft sich auf EGMR, 3. Mai 2007, Bochan/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2007:0503JUD000757702, § 71).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.02.2023 - C-216/21

  Generalanwalt Emiliou: Ein Verfahren für die Beförderung von Richtern, das auf …

  2 Vgl. u. a. Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (im Folgenden EGMR), 15. Juli 2010, Gazeta-Ukraina-Tsentr/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2010:0715JUD001669504, § 32 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung), und EGMR, 3. Mai 2007, Bochan/Ukraine, (CE:ECHR:2007:0503JUD000757702, § 66).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 24810/06

  PARLOV-TKALCIC v. CROATIA

  The Court further reiterates that the concepts of independence and objective impartiality are closely linked (see, for example, Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, § 73, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I) and that it is sometimes difficult to dissociate them (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine, no. 7577/02, § 68, 3 May 2007).

 
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 39071/08

  STRYZH v. UKRAINE

  At the same time, the Court notes that the applicant is entitled under Ukrainian law to request a rehearing of her case in the light of the Court's finding that the domestic courts did not comply with Article 6 in her case (compare with Bochan v. Ukraine, no. 7577/02, § 97, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 67719/01

  MIHALKOV c. BULGARIE

  Quant à la condition d'impartialité, on doit distinguer entre une démarche subjective, destinée à vérifier que le tribunal n'a manifesté aucun parti pris ni préjugé personnel, et une démarche objective amenant à s'assurer qu'il offrait des garanties suffisantes pour exclure à cet égard tout doute légitime (Findlay c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 25 février 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-I, p. 281, § 73 ; Bochan c. Ukraine, no 7577/02, §§ 65-66, 3 mai 2007).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 33188/08

  BATURLOVA v. RUSSIA

  The former is concerned with the judge's impartiality and the latter with defining relations with other bodies, in particular other state powers (see, for example, Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, § 73, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I), and are, sometimes, indivisible (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine, no. 7577/02, § 68, 3 May 2007 and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 82, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 33186/08

  KHRYKIN v. RUSSIA

  The former is concerned with the judge's impartiality and the latter with defining relations with other bodies, in particular other state powers (see, for example, Findlay v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, § 73, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I), and are, sometimes, indivisible (see, for example, Bochan v. Ukraine, no. 7577/02, § 68, 3 May 2007 and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 82, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts)).