Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MILACHIKJ v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MILACHIKJ v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  The general principles concerning the applicability of Article 6 § 2 are set out in Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC] no. 25424/09, §§ 92-94, 103 and 104, ECHR 2013).

  The Grand Chamber noted in Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, § 122, ECHR 2013) that this distinction had been introduced in Sekanina v. Austria (25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), which sought to limit the "opinion that the accused is guilty" principle to cases where criminal proceedings had been discontinued, and that this distinction in principle was followed in subsequent case-law.

• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  VARDAN MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  As the Court has previously held, where the use of unfortunate language may give rise to concern for respect for the presumption of innocence it is important for it, when examining the context of the proceedings as a whole and its specific features, whether the higher courts expressly engaged with this issue (see Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 84, 15 June 2021 and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, § 71, 22 April 2021).

  It is the settled case-law of the Court that it will assess whether the higher courts rectified problematic language used by the lower courts such as to eliminate a possible issue under Article 6 § 2. In cases concerning criminal proceedings in which the lower courts, in decisions concerning detention on remand, had used statements indicating that the person had committed the relevant crime, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 2, concluding that the higher courts either had failed to rectify the "error" made by the lower court (see, for example, Matija?.evic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 47, ECHR 2006-X, and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, § 71, 22 April 2021) or had failed both to acknowledge such an error and to rectify it (see, for example, Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, § 146, 17 September 2020, and Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 88, 15 June 2021).

• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 37816/12

  AVAZ ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  As the Court has previously held, where the use of unfortunate language may give rise to concern for respect for the presumption of innocence it is important for it, when examining the context of the proceedings as a whole and its specific features, whether the higher courts expressly engaged with this issue (see Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 84, 15 June 2021 and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, § 71, 22 April 2021).

  It is the settled case-law of the Court that it will assess whether the higher courts rectified problematic language used by the lower courts such as to eliminate a possible issue under Article 6 § 2. In cases concerning criminal proceedings in which the lower courts, in decisions concerning detention on remand, had used statements indicating that the person had committed the relevant crime, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 2, concluding that the higher courts either had failed to rectify the "error" made by the lower court (see, for example, Matija?.evic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 47, ECHR 2006-X, and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, § 71, 22 April 2021) or had failed both to acknowledge such an error and to rectify it (see, for example, Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, § 146, 17 September 2020, and Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 88, 15 June 2021).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  The principle which, according to Allen (cited above), applies to the discontinuation of criminal proceedings was formulated in Minelli v. Switzerland (25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62), as follows:.
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  The Grand Chamber noted in Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, § 122, ECHR 2013) that this distinction had been introduced in Sekanina v. Austria (25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), which sought to limit the "opinion that the accused is guilty" principle to cases where criminal proceedings had been discontinued, and that this distinction in principle was followed in subsequent case-law.
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  It is the settled case-law of the Court that it will assess whether the higher courts rectified problematic language used by the lower courts such as to eliminate a possible issue under Article 6 § 2. In cases concerning criminal proceedings in which the lower courts, in decisions concerning detention on remand, had used statements indicating that the person had committed the relevant crime, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 2, concluding that the higher courts either had failed to rectify the "error" made by the lower court (see, for example, Matija?.evic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 47, ECHR 2006-X, and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, § 71, 22 April 2021) or had failed both to acknowledge such an error and to rectify it (see, for example, Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, § 146, 17 September 2020, and Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 88, 15 June 2021).
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Y c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  Thus, in two cases concerning Norway in which the lower courts had either found it probable that the applicant had committed the crime, or applied a less stringent standard of proof in the civil proceedings while covering all the constituent elements of a crime in their reasoning, the Court noted that the civil courts had overstepped the bounds of a civil forum and that the Supreme Court had not rectified these shortcomings, despite the Supreme Court having used more careful language (see, respectively, Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, §§ 45-46, ECHR 2003-II, and Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 51-54, 15 May 2008).
• EGMR - 68271/14 (anhängig)

  HALL v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  68273/14 and 68271/14, § 75, 22 December 2020): (a) the classification of the offence under the domestic law, (b) the nature of the offence, and (c) the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risks incurring.
• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 58444/15

  GRUBNYK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  It is the settled case-law of the Court that it will assess whether the higher courts rectified problematic language used by the lower courts such as to eliminate a possible issue under Article 6 § 2. In cases concerning criminal proceedings in which the lower courts, in decisions concerning detention on remand, had used statements indicating that the person had committed the relevant crime, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 2, concluding that the higher courts either had failed to rectify the "error" made by the lower court (see, for example, Matija?.evic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 47, ECHR 2006-X, and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, § 71, 22 April 2021) or had failed both to acknowledge such an error and to rectify it (see, for example, Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, § 146, 17 September 2020, and Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 88, 15 June 2021).
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 65170/14

  A v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  The Court was satisfied that the presumption of innocence was not called into question after the domestic proceedings had come to an end, that is, after the rectification made by the Supreme Court (see A. v. Norway (dec.), no. 65170/14, §§ 40-41, 29 May 2018).

• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 27027/18

  2002 EVRO BUS UVOZ-IZVOZ PRILEP DOO v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Alleged violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention 7. The Court notes that it has already considered the admissibility objection (incompatibility ratione materiae) submitted by the Government and rejected it in a previous similar case (see Milachikj v. North Macedonia (no. 44773/16, §§ 22-28, 14 October 2021).