Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LAGARDÈRE c. FRANCE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure pénale Article 6-1 - Procés équitable Egalité des armes) Article 6-2 - Présomption d'innocence) Dommage - demande rejetée (Article 41 - Dommage matériel) Préjudice moral - réparation ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LAGARDÈRE v. FRANCE [Extracts]
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Equality of arms) Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) Damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Lagardère v. France
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
- EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 18851/07
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (20)
- EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 28389/95
ASAN RUSHITI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
The Court has been known to find this provision applicable to judicial decisions taken after the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings (see, for example Minelli, cited above, and Lutz, Englert and Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123) or after an acquittal (see Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 25, Series A no. 266-A; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, 21 March 2000; Lamanna v. Austria, no. 28923/95, 10 July 2001; Capeau v. Belgium, no 42914/98, § 24, 13 January 2005; and Puig Panella v. Spain, no. 1483/02, § 51, 25 April 2006).[2] See, inter alia, Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 30, Series A no. 266-A; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, § 31, 21 March 2000; Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, §§ 39-47, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, §§ 33-41, ECHR 2003-II; and Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-55, 15 May 2008.
- EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87
SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
The Court has been known to find this provision applicable to judicial decisions taken after the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings (see, for example Minelli, cited above, and Lutz, Englert and Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123) or after an acquittal (see Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 25, Series A no. 266-A; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, 21 March 2000; Lamanna v. Austria, no. 28923/95, 10 July 2001; Capeau v. Belgium, no 42914/98, § 24, 13 January 2005; and Puig Panella v. Spain, no. 1483/02, § 51, 25 April 2006).[2] See, inter alia, Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 30, Series A no. 266-A; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, § 31, 21 March 2000; Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, §§ 39-47, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, §§ 33-41, ECHR 2003-II; and Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-55, 15 May 2008.
- EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00
Y c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
In such cases it examines whether the compensation proceedings in the particular case gave rise to a "criminal charge" against the applicant and, in the event that this was not the case, whether the compensation case was nevertheless linked to the criminal trial in such a way as to fall within the scope of Article 6 § 2 (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II, and Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, Reports 2003-II (extracts)).[2] See, inter alia, Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 30, Series A no. 266-A; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, § 31, 21 March 2000; Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, §§ 39-47, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, §§ 33-41, ECHR 2003-II; and Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-55, 15 May 2008.
- EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89
ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
The Court reiterates that while the principle of the presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 of that Article (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 27, Series A no. 62; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 62, Series A no. 168; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308; Bernard v. France, 23 April 1998, § 37; and Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 58939/00, § 59, 18 March 2010), it is not merely a procedural safeguard in criminal proceedings.[3] Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308.
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79
Minelli ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
The Court reiterates that while the principle of the presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 of that Article (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 27, Series A no. 62; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 62, Series A no. 168; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308; Bernard v. France, 23 April 1998, § 37; and Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 58939/00, § 59, 18 March 2010), it is not merely a procedural safeguard in criminal proceedings. - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
The Court reiterates that while the principle of the presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 of that Article (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 27, Series A no. 62; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 62, Series A no. 168; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308; Bernard v. France, 23 April 1998, § 37; and Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 58939/00, § 59, 18 March 2010), it is not merely a procedural safeguard in criminal proceedings. - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
The Court reiterates that while the principle of the presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 of that Article (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 27, Series A no. 62; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 62, Series A no. 168; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308; Bernard v. France, 23 April 1998, § 37; and Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 58939/00, § 59, 18 March 2010), it is not merely a procedural safeguard in criminal proceedings. - EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 34964/97
RINGVOLD c. NORVEGE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
In such cases it examines whether the compensation proceedings in the particular case gave rise to a "criminal charge" against the applicant and, in the event that this was not the case, whether the compensation case was nevertheless linked to the criminal trial in such a way as to fall within the scope of Article 6 § 2 (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II, and Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, Reports 2003-II (extracts)). - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94
Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
In the present case the role of the Court is therefore not to determine whether the decisions pronounced by criminal court and the Paris Court of Appeal were decisions on the merits under French law - the domestic courts being better placed to determine this type of question - but to ascertain whether, in the present case, the proceedings, taken as a whole, were fair as required by Article 6 § 1 and the decisions of the domestic courts were not manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary (see Mantovanelli v. France, 18 March 1997, § 34, Reports 1997-II, and Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 44962/98
YVON c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07
That principle, which is one element of the broader concept of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, requires "a fair balance between the parties": each party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among other authorities, Ankerl v. Switzerland, 23 October 1996, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, 18 February 1997, § 23, Reports 1997-I; Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 72, ECHR 2001-VI; Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 56, ECHR 2004-III; and Yvon v. France, no. 44962/98, § 31, ECHR 2003-V). - EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96
Dieter Krombach
- EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88
RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98
KRESS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99
PEREZ c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01
EINHORN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01
SOMOGYI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 20491/92
MEDENICA c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00
GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
- VerfGH Berlin, 20.06.2014 - VerfGH 128/12
Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde - Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung (Art 9 Abs …
c) Dieser Maßstab ist auch anzuwenden, soweit die Strafprozessordnung die vereinfachte Geltendmachung zivilrechtlicher Entschädigungsansprüche gegen den Beschuldigten nach §§ 403 ff. StPO im Verbund mit dem Strafverfahren ermöglicht und hierzu in § 472a Abs. 2 StPO eine eigenständige Bestimmung über Auslagen enthält, zumal der Adhäsionskläger häufig zusätzlich als Nebenkläger im Strafverfahren auftritt (vgl. zur Geltung der Unschuldsvermutung im Adhäsionsverfahren auch - zu Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK -: EGMR, Urteil vom 12. April 2012 - 18851/07 -, abrufbar unter www.echr.coe.int, Tz. 78 ff.).