Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O'NEILL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  O'NEILL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 14541/15

  The applicant sought leave from the Appeal Court to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, submitting, inter alia, that the Appeal Court had erred in its interpretation of Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A.

  Finally, the Government contended that Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A had no relevance to the applicant's case, as it was solely concerned with the second aspect of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

  In cases concerning statements made after an acquittal has become final, it has considered that the voicing of suspicions regarding an accused's innocence is no longer admissible (see Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 30, Series A no. 266-A for the standards in that regard, and Allen, cited above, § 122 with further references).

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 14541/15

  In contrast, the presumption of innocence will only be violated in cases concerning statements after the discontinuation of criminal proceedings if, without the accused's having previously been proved guilty according to law and, in particular, without his having had an opportunity to exercise the rights of the defence, a judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty (see, inter alia, Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62, and Englert v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 37, Series A no. 123).
• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 14541/15

  Viewed as a procedural guarantee in the context of a criminal trial itself, the presumption of innocence imposes requirements in respect of, inter alia, the burden of proof, legal presumptions of fact and law, the privilege against self-incrimination, pre-trial publicity and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant's guilt (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).

• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 57195/17

  Keine Verletzung des Rechts auf privates Familienleben: Maddie McCann's Eltern …

  Au demeurant, à supposer même que l'article 6 § 2 de la Convention fût applicable à la procédure civile en cause en l'espèce, il n'apparaît pas que, dans ses arrêts du 31 janvier 2017 et du 27 mars 2017, 1a Cour suprême ait formulé des commentaires suggérant une quelconque culpabilité des requérants ou même des soupçons à leur égard concernant les circonstances de la disparition de leur fille (voir, Allen, précité, § 122 et comparer avec O'Neill c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 14541/15, §§ 37-39, 8 janvier 2019).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 35726/10

  KANGERS v. LATVIA

  [6] In the admittedly different context of how the presumption of innocence operates in circumstances where criminal proceedings have been concluded, the Court recently reiterated in O'Neill v. the United Kingdom, no. 14541/15, § 40, 8 January 2019 (emphasis added), that: "There is no single approach to ascertaining the circumstances in which Article 6 § 2 will be violated in the context of proceedings which follow the conclusion of criminal proceedings.