Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KILIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  Article 17 is only applicable on an exceptional basis and in extreme cases and should, in cases concerning Article 10 of the Convention, only be resorted to if it is immediately clear that the impugned statements sought to deflect this Article from its real purpose by employing the right to freedom of expression for ends clearly contrary to the values of the Convention (see Perinçek, cited above, § 114, and Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, § 37, 3 October 2019).

  The Court has previously taken into account the intention of or the purpose being pursued by the applicant, in particular where that consideration had formed part of the criminal courts" reasoning (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, §§ 32-33 and 36, Series A no. 298; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 70-71, 16 July 2009; Perinçek, cited above, §§ 232-33; Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 115 and 123, 9 May 2018; Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 43-48, 3 October 2019; and Atamanchuk, cited above, §§ 60 and 62).

• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  other material 43. On 8 December 2015 the Council of Europe's European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) adopted General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech (for relevant summaries, see among others Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, § 29, 11 February 2020, and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 44-45, 6 October 2020).

  The Court also held, inter alia, that negative stereotyping of an ethnic group was capable, when reaching a certain level, of having an impact on the group's sense of identity and on its members" feelings of self-worth and self-confidence (ibid., § 58; see also Lewit v. Austria, no. 4782/18, §§ 46-47 and 82-87, 10 October 2019; and Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, §§ 42 and 61, 11 February 2020).

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00

  MARTINIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  By rendering the administration of justice visible, publicity contributes to the achievement of the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-VI).

 
• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  The Court reiterates, however, that while the overall fairness of the proceedings is the overarching principle under Article 6 of the Convention (see Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV), the (non-)violation of the defendant's right to a public hearing vis-à-vis the exclusion of the public and the press does not necessarily correlate with the existence of any actual damage to the defendant's exercise of his other procedural rights, including those protected under paragraph 3 of Article 6.
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03

  CHAUSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  37037/03 and 2 others, §§ 22-23, 25 October 2016).
• EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  WELKE AND BIALEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  Holding proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera must be "strictly necessary" in that last situation mentioned above and, in any event, must be "strictly required" by the circumstances of the case in respect of the other situations listed above (ibid., § 40; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, § 71, 5 February 2009; Welke and Bialek v. Poland, no. 15924/05, § 74, 1 March 2011; and Chaushev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 4782/18

  Österreich verurteilt: Vorwürfe eines KZ-Überlebenden nicht geprüft

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  The Court also held, inter alia, that negative stereotyping of an ethnic group was capable, when reaching a certain level, of having an impact on the group's sense of identity and on its members" feelings of self-worth and self-confidence (ibid., § 58; see also Lewit v. Austria, no. 4782/18, §§ 46-47 and 82-87, 10 October 2019; and Atamanchuk v. Russia, no. 4493/11, §§ 42 and 61, 11 February 2020).
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 39496/11

  SINKOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  The Court considers that the suspended eighteen-month term of imprisonment with a similar period of probation and some other requirements (see paragraph 31 above) was proportionate in the specific circumstances of the case (compare Pastörs, cited above, § 48; Stomakhin, cited above, §§ 127-32; and Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 111, 27 February 2018).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 11257/16

  Regeln für Hyperlinks konkretisiert

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  For instance, the Court has previously stated that the prosecution for posting a hyperlink to defamatory material online amounted to an "interference" under Article 10 of the Convention (see Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary, no. 11257/16, § 56, 4 December 2018).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

  The Court has previously taken into account the intention of or the purpose being pursued by the applicant, in particular where that consideration had formed part of the criminal courts" reasoning (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, §§ 32-33 and 36, Series A no. 298; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 70-71, 16 July 2009; Perinçek, cited above, §§ 232-33; Stomakhin v. Russia, no. 52273/07, §§ 115 and 123, 9 May 2018; Pastörs v. Germany, no. 55225/14, §§ 43-48, 3 October 2019; and Atamanchuk, cited above, §§ 60 and 62).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 3111/10

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof verurteilt Türkei wegen Online-Zensur
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 10692/09

  SAVVA TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 5266/03

  NIKOWITZ AND VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13

  Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert

• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 45581/15

  SANCHEZ c. FRANCE

  L'intention d'inciter à commettre de tels actes peut être établie dès lors que l'auteur du discours de haine invite sans équivoque autrui à le faire ; elle peut aussi être présumée au regard de la virulence des termes employés et d'autres circonstances pertinentes, telle la conduite antérieure de l'auteur du discours ; il n'est pas toujours facile de prouver l'existence de cette intention, notamment quand les propos portent officiellement sur des faits supposés ou quand du langage codé est employé (cf., également, Kilin c. Russie, no 10271/12, § 73, 11 mai 2021).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 10613/10

  EKREM CAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  As regards the second limb of the Government's objection, which focused on the applicants' actions during the protest, the Court finds it more appropriate to join it to the merits of the complaint under Article 11 of the Convention, given that the question of whether the applicants had violent intentions, incited others to violence or committed any violent acts themselves during the protest is inherently linked to and overlaps with the Court's examination of the question of whether there has been an interference with the applicant's rights under that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Kilin v. Russia, no. 10271/12, § 49, 11 May 2021).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 5869/17

  ERKIZIA ALMANDOZ c. ESPAGNE

  [6] La terminologie de la « justification'est également utilisée dans deux autres arrêts récents de la troisième section de la Cour, non encore définitifs et pour cette raison non cités dans le présent arrêt: RID Novaya Gazeta et ZAO Novaya Gazeta c. Russie, no 44561/11, § 91, 11 mai 2021, et Kilin c. Russie, no 10271/12, § 71, 11 mai 2021.

 
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 7610/15

  VASIL VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  Here, it must be added that although publicity contributes to the achievement of a fair trial (see, among many other authorities, Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 26, Series A no. 74; Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 32, Series A no. 325-A; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 39, ECHR 2006-VI), the right to a public hearing can be infringed even if the non-public character of the proceedings has not appreciably affected their fairness (see Kilin v. Russia, no. 10271/12, § 111, 11 May 2021).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 3642/10

  MUKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The decisive point when assessing whether the statements are removed from the protection of Article 10 by Article 17, is whether those statements are directed against the Convention's underlying values or whether by making the statement the author attempted to rely on the Convention to engage in an activity or perform acts aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms laid down in it (see Kilin v. Russia, no. 10271/12, § 48, 11 May 2021).
• EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 58262/10

  KAZAN c. TÜRKIYE

  Sur l'existence de l'ingérence 56. La Cour rappelle avoir constaté qu'il y a eu ingérence dans l'exercice par le requérant de son droit à la liberté de réunion lorsque le requérant et d'autres personnes s'étaient rendus au tribunal afin d'assister au prononcé du jugement rendu dans un procès pénal qui, selon eux, revêtait un caractère politique (Navalnyy c. Russie [GC], nos. 29580/12 et 4 autres, §§ 110-111, novembre 2018 ; pour une approche similaire dans le contexte de l'article 10, Kilin c. Russie, no 10271/12, § 55, 11 mai 2021 ; et Imrek c. Turquie, no 45975/12, § 29, 10 novembre 2020, avec d'autres références).
• EGMR, 23.02.2023 - 22323/16

  RUSTAMZADE v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  Article 10 of the Convention guarantees "everyone" the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas (see Kilin v. Russia, no. 10271/12, § 54, 11 May 2021).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 72114/17

  FILAT c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  À la lumière de ce qui précède et à supposer même que les autres droits de la défense aient été respectés (comparer avec Kilin c. Russie, no 10271/12, §§ 111-12, 11 mai 2021), la Cour considère qu'il n'a pas été prouvé que l'exclusion du public du procès pénal du requérant devant le tribunal de première instance et devant la cour d'appel était strictement nécessaire au regard des circonstances de l'espèce.
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 26129/09

  CHAKHMAKHCHYAN AND OGANESYAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that while the Convention does not prohibit the holding of proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera, it must be strictly required by the circumstances of the case (see Welke and Bialek v. Poland, no. 15924/05, § 74, 1 March 2011, and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006-VI), even where an applicant would otherwise be afforded an adequate opportunity to put forward a defence with due regard to his right to an oral hearing and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure (see Kilin v. Russia, no. 10271/12, §§ 111-12, 11 May 2021).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 78618/13

  MOSEYEV v. RUSSIA

  The general principles concerning statements, verbal or nonverbal, alleged to stir up or justify violence, hatred or intolerance have been summarized in Perinçek v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 204-08, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and Kilin v. Russia, no. 10271/12, §§ 71-72, 11 May 2021.