Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK; Art. 1 Zusatzprotokoll Nr. 1 zur EMRK; Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 14 GG; § 1967 BGB
  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche Schuldunterstellungen; Verletzung der Eigentumsfreiheit durch zivilrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Erben eines verstorbenen Angeklagten (Haftung des Erben nach Straftaten des Erblassers; ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VULAKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-2 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vulakh and Others v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03

  ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

  GRIDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).

 
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 289/04

  POPOVICI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  In the circumstances, the Court finds that the declarations by the Russian courts to the effect that Mr Vitaliy Vulakh had been the head of a criminal gang which had committed serious crimes under his leadership, before he was convicted, amounted to a breach of his right to be presumed innocent (compare Popovici v. Moldova, nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, §§ 76-79, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court reiterates that the provision of a judicial forum does not automatically engage the State's responsibility under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nevertheless, the State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if the court decisions were not given in accordance with domestic law or if they were flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among others, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and Breierova and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008; Ne??ák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 71, 6 February 2007; Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 22, ECHR 2005"I; Böhmer v. Germany, no.  37568/97, § 54, 3 October 2002; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008; Ne??ák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 71, 6 February 2007; Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 22, ECHR 2005"I; Böhmer v. Germany, no.  37568/97, § 54, 3 October 2002; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Y c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court underlines that there can be no justification for a court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind (see the above-cited case-law, and also Ka?mierczak v. Poland, no. 4317/04, § 54, 10 March 2009; Wojciechowski v. Poland, no. 5422/04, § 54, 9 December 2008; Del Latte v. the Netherlands, no. 44760/98, § 31, 9 November 2004; and, as regards subsequent civil proceedings, Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 46, ECHR 2003"II (extracts), and Baars v. the Netherlands, no. 44320/98, § 63, 28 October 2003).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008; Ne??ák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 71, 6 February 2007; Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 22, ECHR 2005"I; Böhmer v. Germany, no.  37568/97, § 54, 3 October 2002; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4317/04

  KAZMIERCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 28.10.2003 - 44320/98

  Unschuldsvermutung: Schutz vor (Kosten-)Entscheidungen, welche den Angeklagten …
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 44760/98

  DEL LATTE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA ET MOISEYEVA CONTRE LA RUSSIE

• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  (e) the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr, cited above, §§ 47-49; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; and Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012);.
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 76607/13

  BIKAS v. GERMANY

  Aus den Begründungen einer Reihe von Urteilen des Gerichtshofs ergibt sich, dass die Anwendbarkeit der Unschuldsvermutung mit einer rechtskräftigen Verurteilung endet (…siehe u. a. Konstas, a. a. O., Rdnrn. 35 bis 36, im Hinblick auf ein Rechtsmittelverfahren; Vulakh u. a../. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33468/03, Rdnr. 36, 10. Januar 2012;… und C., a. a. O., Rdnr. 59).
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In particular, the mere fact that the State, through its judicial system, provided a forum for the determination of such a private-law dispute does not give rise to an interference by the State with property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Kucha?™ and ? tis v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 37527/97, 21 October 1998).The State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if court decisions are not given in accordance with domestic law or if they are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).

 
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 39544/05

  ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. v. CROATIA

  The State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if court decisions are not given in accordance with domestic law or if they are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54490/10

  ZHIDOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle qu'elle n'est pas appelée, en principe, à régler des différends purement privés et que le fait pour l'État, par le biais de son système judiciaire, de fournir un cadre pour l'appréciation des droits et obligations du requérant n'engage pas automatiquement sa responsabilité au regard de l'article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention (voir, parmi d'autres, Vulakh et autres c. Russie, no 33468/03, § 44, 10 janvier 2012, Anheuser Busch Inc. c. Portugal [GC], no 73049/01, §§ 83-87, CEDH 2007-I, et Kotov c. Russie [GC], no 54522/00, § 92, 3 avril 2012).
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 27879/13

  BOKOVA c. RUSSIE

  Dans ces circonstances, la Cour estime qu'un tel réexamen constitue en l'occurrence le moyen le plus approprié pour remédier à la violation constatée (voir également, mutatis mutandis, Denisova et Moiseyeva c. Russie (satisfaction équitable), no 16903/03, § 14, 14 juin 2011, Vulakh et autres c. Russie, no 33468/03, § 54, 10 janvier 2012, Malikov et Oshchepkov c. Russie (comité), no 42981/06, § 39, 12 novembre 2015).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  VELLA v. MALTA

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; and Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO (No. 2)

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012; Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 44, 11 February 2014; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 42, 18 December 2014; and Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 62, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 2223/14

  RUZHNIKOV c. RUSSIE

  En l'espèce, la Cour note que, dans son jugement du 11 mars 2013, 1a cour régionale de Belgorod a dit qu'il était « établi'que le requérant avait participé au délit de détournement de fonds et qu'il y avait un risque qu'il continuât cette activité illégale (paragraphe 12 ci-dessus ; voir aussi l'affaire Vulakh et autres c. Russie (no 33468/03, § 35, 10 janvier 2012) dans laquelle une juridiction civile a considéré qu'une personne avait commis une infraction alors que l'enquête pénale contre cette personne s'était terminée par un non-lieu en raison de son décès, ainsi que les affaires Kemal Coskun c. Turquie (no 45028/07, § 53, 28 mars 2017) et Seven c. Turquie, (no 60392/08, § 53, 23 janvier 2018), dans lesquelles les juridictions administratives ayant statué sur les recours des requérants contre leurs licenciements ont déclaré sans réserve que les intéressés avaient commis des délits pénaux, en l'absence de condamnations pénales de ces derniers).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 57273/13

  NURMIYEVA c. RUSSIE

  Compte tenu du fait que les arrêts de la Cour sont contraignants pour la Russie et que, en vertu de l'article 392 du code de procédure civile, le constat de violation de la Convention ou de ses Protocoles par la Cour constitue un fondement pour le réexamen de l'affaire concernée à la lumière des conclusions de la Cour, et vu que la présente affaire opposait la requérante aux autorités publiques et non pas à une partie privée dont les intérêts légitimes propres seraient à protéger (Bochan c. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no 22251/08, § 57, CEDH 2015 ; comparer avec Almeida Santos c. Portugal (satisfaction équitable), no 50812/06, §§ 11-12, 27 juillet 2010), la Cour est d'avis qu'un tel réexamen constitue en l'occurrence le moyen le plus approprié pour remédier à la violation constatée (Denisova et Moiseyeva c. Russie (satisfaction équitable), no 16903/03, § 14, 14 juin 2011, et Vulakh et autres c. Russie, no 33468/03, § 54, 10 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  MINDEK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 25080/20

  GEORGOPOULOU-MOUSLI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 54839/17

  MADZAROVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 15706/08

  KAISER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 72783/11

  THEO NATIONAL CONSTRUCT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA