Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARDAN MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 33882/05

  SANDRU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  The proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained person (see, among other authorities, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II, and ?žandru v. Romania, no. 33882/05, § 46, 15 October 2013).
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 17103/10

  Verletzung des Grundsatzes der Unschuldsvermutung gegenüber einem türkischen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  In this regard the Court has emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of an offence (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X; Marziano v. Italy, no. 45313/99, § 28, 28 November 2002; and Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, § 63, 27 February 2014).
• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  The presumption of innocence will be violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law (see, among other authorities, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308; Matija?.evic v.Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-X; and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  The presumption of innocence will be violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved guilty according to law (see, among other authorities, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308; Matija?.evic v.Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-X; and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  RAMKOVSKI v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 74-77, 24 April 2014; and Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, §§ 83-85, 8 February 2018).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  PERICA OREB v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  Conversely, in a number of cases the Court has found that the wording employed by the domestic courts when deciding on the applicant's detention did not amount to a declaration of the applicants" guilt in breach of the presumption of innocence (see, for example, Karan v. Croatia (dec.), no. 21139/05, 7 December 2006; Perica Oreb v. Croatia, no. 20824/09, §§ 142-143, 31 October 2013; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos.
• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 58444/15

  GRUBNYK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  The Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 2 in a number of cases where the domestic courts, in pre-trial detention decisions, stated in an unqualified manner that the applicant had committed an offence (see, for example, Matija?.evic, cited above, §§ 47-51; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, §§ 71-73, 6 February 2007; Ne?.?¥ák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 89-91, 27 February 2007; Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, §§ 89-93, 20 September 2011; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 202-204, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Mugo?.a v. Montenegro, no. 76522/12, §§ 68 and 69, 21 June 2016; and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 138-147, 17 September 2020).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official regards the accused as guilty, while a premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62, and Matija?.evic v. Serbia, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  In this connection, the effective enjoyment of the right to compensation guaranteed by Article 5 § 5 must be ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty (see, among other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  VASENIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  The Convention here refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 47, ECHR 2003-IV; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II; and Vasenin v. Russia, no. 48023/06, § 108, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 629/11

  ARA HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  FEDORENKO v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 62048/15

  VENIERIS v. GREECE

  It is settled case-law that the Court 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. It has found a violation of Article 6 § 2 in cases where it concluded that the higher courts had either 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, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  MILACHIKJ v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  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, 28.11.2023 - 39712/16

  NADIR YILDIRIM AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  Be that as it may, the Court has already found violations of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the wording used in decisions ordering or extending the pre-trial detention of applicants (see Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 83, 15 June 2021, with further references), despite the fact that the legal question therein - as in the present case - did not concern the determination of an applicant's guilt; that fact cannot therefore have a decisive bearing on the assessment of whether there has been a breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 82348/17

  D.S. v. ARMENIA

  Lastly, the Government claimed that, following the acknowledgment of the breach of his rights, the applicant could have sought compensation under Article 162.1 of the Civil Code in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered (see the summary of the relevant provision in Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 37, 15 June 2021).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 56126/17

  YEDIGARYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the leading case of Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia (no. 13610/12, 15 June 2021), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 22665/10

  PASHINYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court refers to its relevant case-law principles under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and notes that it has recently examined a similar complaint, finding a violation of that provision with regard to the applicant's detention during trial (see Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, §§ 45-50, 15 June 2021).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 4693/12

  MKHITARYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  In the leading case of Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia (no. 13610/12, 15 June 2021), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 28597/14

  AFITSERYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes, however, that it has already found that an appeal on points of law is not an effective remedy in detention cases (see Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia, no. 13610/12, § 41, 15 June 2021, with further references).