Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  In this respect it has distinguished between applications continued by the relatives of the applicants who had personally lodged applications and died during the proceedings before the Court (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI) and those lodged by the relatives after the death of the applicants.

  As is noted in the judgment (§ 91), the Court has in this regard drawn a distinction between cases where relatives seek to continue with an application duly lodged by an applicant who died during the proceedings before the Court (as in the case of Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, ECHR 1999-VI) and those where the application itself has been lodged by the relatives after the death of the alleged victim (as in the cases of Biç and Others v. Turkey, No. 55955/00 and Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) 24790/04, 8 March 2005).

• EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 24790/04

  FAIRFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  While it is true the rules of admissibility governed by Article 35 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, Article 34 requires that an individual applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation alleged (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX and Fairfield and others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 24790/04, 8 March 2005).

  As is noted in the judgment (§ 91), the Court has in this regard drawn a distinction between cases where relatives seek to continue with an application duly lodged by an applicant who died during the proceedings before the Court (as in the case of Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, ECHR 1999-VI) and those where the application itself has been lodged by the relatives after the death of the alleged victim (as in the cases of Biç and Others v. Turkey, No. 55955/00 and Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) 24790/04, 8 March 2005).

• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33).

 
• EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 54723/00

  BRUDNICKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  The same applies to the more recent authority of the Court in the case of Brudnicka and Others v. Poland (no. 54723/00, ECHR 2005-II) which similarly gave rise to an issue of the victim status of the applicant parties to a special form of procedure.
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  Such recognition of the applicant's rights by the domestic courts creates a prima facie presumption that she indeed enjoyed the relevant rights, and that, since the domestic law allowed her to have the case examined by the courts, Article 6 of the Convention applied (cf., mutatis mutandis, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 57, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  It does not follow, however, that a decision whereby the innocence of a man "charged with a criminal offence" is put in issue after his death cannot be challenged by his widow under Article 25. She may be able to show both a legitimate material interest in her capacity as the deceased's heir and a moral interest, on behalf of herself and of the family, in having her late husband exonerated from any finding of guilt (see, mutatis mutandis, the Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, pp. 19-20, § 37).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, §§ 59 and 61, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02

  BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  Nevertheless, although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, §§ 59 and 61, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 37801/97

  SUOMINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  Similar failures to give sufficient reasons resulted in findings of violations of Article 6 of the Convention in Hiro Balani (cited above, §§ 27 and 28), Suominen v. Finland (no. 37801/97, §§ 34-38, 1 July 2003), Salov v. Ukraine (no. 65518/01, § 92, ECHR 2005-... (extracts), Popov v. Moldova (no. 2), (no. 19960/04, §§ 49-54, 6 December 2005), Melnic v. Moldova (no. 6923/03, §§ 39-44, 14 November 2006) and other similar cases.
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  While it is true the rules of admissibility governed by Article 35 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, Article 34 requires that an individual applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation alleged (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX and Fairfield and others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 24790/04, 8 March 2005).
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

  SALOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 19960/04

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 6923/03

  MELNIC v. MOLDOVA

• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

  Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein …

  Die Beteiligung des Beschwerdeführers an den innerstaatlichen Verfahren ist nur eines von verschiedenen maßgeblichen Kriterien (…siehe N../. Deutschland, 25. August 1987, Rdnr. 33, Serie A Nr. 123; Gradinar./. Moldawien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 7170/02, Rdnrn. 95-103, 8. April 2008;… Micallef, a.a.O., Rdnrn 48-49;… Kaburov./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9035/06, Rdnrn. 53 und 58, 19. Juni 2012, und Centre for Legal Resources im Namen von Valentin Câmpeanu, a.a.O., Rdnr. 100).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Dans d'autres affaires concernant des griefs tirés des articles 5, 6 et 8, la Cour a reconnu la qualité de victime à des proches qui avaient démontré l'existence d'un intérêt moral à voir la défunte victime déchargée de tout constat de culpabilité (Nölkenbockhoff c. Allemagne, 25 août 1987, § 33, série A no 123, et Gradinar c. Moldova, no 7170/02, §§ 95 et 97-98, 8 avril 2008) ou à protéger leur propre réputation et celle de leur famille (Brudnicka et autres c. Pologne, no 54723/00, §§ 27-31, CEDH 2005-II, Armoniene c. Lituanie, no 36919/02, § 29, 25 novembre 2008, et Polanco Torres et Movilla Polanco c. Espagne, no 34147/06, §§ 31-33, 21 septembre 2010), ou qui avaient établi l'existence d'un intérêt matériel découlant d'un effet direct sur leurs droits patrimoniaux (Ressegatti c. Suisse, no 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 juillet 2006, Marie-Louise Loyen et Bruneel, §§ 29-30, Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, et Micallef, § 48, tous précités).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court's approach to cases introduced by applicants themselves and only continued by their relatives after their deaths differs from its approach to cases in which the application has been lodged after the death of the direct victim (see Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 24790/04, 8 March 2005; Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, § 20, 2 February 2006; Direkçi v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47826/99, 3 October 2006; Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, § 91, 8 April 2008; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 39, 28 July 2009; and Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, § 52, 19 June 2012).

 
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE

  Pour ce qui est des griefs tirés de l'article 6, 1a Cour s'est montrée prête à reconnaître la qualité de victime des proches ou héritiers ayant un intérêt légitime - matériel ou moral - à défendre la réputation de leur proche décédé (voir Nölkenbockhoff c. Allemagne, 25 août 1987, § 33, série A no 123, et Gradinar c. Moldova, no 7170/02, §§ 90-103, 8 avril 2008).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 60103/11

  STEPANIAN c. ROUMANIE

  Dans d'autres affaires concernant des griefs tirés des articles 5, 6 et 8, la Cour a reconnu la qualité de victime à des proches qui avaient démontré l'existence d'un intérêt moral (Nölkenbockhoff c. Allemagne, 25 août 1987, § 33, série A no 123, et Gradinar c. Moldova, no 7170/02, §§ 95 et 97-98, 8 avril 2008) ou un intérêt matériel dans l'affaire (Ressegatti c. Suisse, no 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 juillet 2006, Marie-Louise Loyen et Bruneel c. France, no 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 juillet 2005, Nölkenbockhoff, précité, § 33, et Micallef c. Malte [GC], no 17056/06, § 48, CEDH 2009,).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  KABUROV v. BULGARIA

  In other cases concerning complaints under Articles 5, 6 or 8 the Court has been prepared to recognise victim status and standing of close relatives to submit an application where they have shown a moral interest in having the late victim exonerated of any finding of guilt (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, § 33, 25 August 1987, and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 95 and 97-98, 8 April 2008) or in protecting their own reputation and that of their family (see Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2005-II; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 31-33, 21 September 2010), or where they have shown a material interest on the basis of the direct effect on their patrimonial rights (see Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005; and the above-cited Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, Gradinar, § 97, and Micallef [GC], § 25).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 11656/08

  BAR-BAU SP. Z O. O. c. POLOGNE

  Elle a toutefois clairement souligné à la même occasion en se basant sur une jurisprudence abondante, qu'il n'était en aucun cas exclu que dans des circonstances particulières d'une affaire une Cour suprême puisse être tenue de justifier de manière plus détaillée sa décision (Yanakiev c. Bulgarie, no 40476/98, § 72, 10 août 2006; Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 50, CEDH 2007-... (extraits); Wagner et J.M.W.L. c. Luxembourg, no 76240/01, § 96, CEDH 2007-... (extraits); Gradinar c. Moldova, no 7170/02, § 115, 8 avril 2008; Velted-98 AD c. Bulgarie, no 15239/02, § 48, 11 décembre 2008).
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 39966/09

  GILLISSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  (a) Article 6 § 1 places the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see, among many other authorities, Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288; Wierzbicki v. Poland, no. 24541/94, § 39, 18 June 2002; Van Kück v. Germany, no. 35968/97, § 48, ECHR 2003-VII; Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I; and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, § 107, 8 April 2008; as a more recent authority, see Ternovskis v. Latvia, no. 33637/02, § 66, 29 April 2014).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09

  NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Conversely, where the deceased has been an alleged victim of a violation of a right other than the substantive right protected by Article 2, the Court has generally declined to grant standing to any other person unless that person could, exceptionally, demonstrate an interest of their own (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 33, Series A no. 123; Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2005-II; Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, § 25, 13 July 2006; and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 100-01, 8 April 2008; compare and contrast Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI; Fairfield and Others (dec.), cited above; Makri and Others v. Greece (dec.), no. 5977/03, ECHR 24 March 2005; and Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, § 23, 2 February 2006).
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 55508/07

  JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  On the other hand, the Court has held that Article 6 applies under its civil head to rehabilitation proceedings in so far as such proceedings concern the right of the applicants to defend their reputation and that of their deceased relatives (see Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 24-34, ECHR 2005-II; Kurzac v. Poland (dec.), no. 31382/96, 25 May 2000; and also Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 96-98, 8 April 2008).
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 38308/05

  WNUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 29842/11

  MASLENNIKOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 20977/18 (anhängig)

  MIROSHNIK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 31975/19

  KOVÁCOVÁ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA