Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BÉRES AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BÉRES AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 54963/08

  Individualbeschwerde gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland wegen Verletzung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  In this respect, the Court notes that under its case-law even the regrettable use of some unfortunate language does not have to be decisive as to the lack of respect for the presumption of innocence given the nature and context of the particular proceedings (see Müller v. Germany, no. 54963/08, § 54, 27 March 2014).

  I am no particular fan of the case-law that has spawned around Article 6 § 2 following on from Minelli v. Switzerland (25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), as one can immediately gather from even a cursory examination of my separate opinions in Ashendon and Jones v. the United Kingdom (nos. 35730/07 and 4285/08, 15 December 2011), Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013), and Müller v. Germany (no. 54963/08, 27 March 2014).

  The majority point out that "under [the Court's] case-law even the regrettable use of some unfortunate language does not have to be decisive as to the lack of respect for the presumption of innocence given the nature and context of the particular proceedings (see Müller v. Germany, no. 54963/08, § 54, 27 March 2014)" (see paragraph 31 of the judgment).

• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 35730/07

  ASHENDON AND JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  I am no particular fan of the case-law that has spawned around Article 6 § 2 following on from Minelli v. Switzerland (25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), as one can immediately gather from even a cursory examination of my separate opinions in Ashendon and Jones v. the United Kingdom (nos. 35730/07 and 4285/08, 15 December 2011), Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013), and Müller v. Germany (no. 54963/08, 27 March 2014).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards that person as guilty (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X; and A.L. v. Germany, no. 72758/01, § 31, 28 April 2005).

 
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 72758/01

  Unschuldsvermutung (Entschädigungsansprüche; konkludente Schuldfeststellung bei …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards that person as guilty (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X; and A.L. v. Germany, no. 72758/01, § 31, 28 April 2005).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

  VIRABYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  Moreover, the principle of the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities (see Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, §§ 185-86, 2 October 2012 and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  I am no particular fan of the case-law that has spawned around Article 6 § 2 following on from Minelli v. Switzerland (25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), as one can immediately gather from even a cursory examination of my separate opinions in Ashendon and Jones v. the United Kingdom (nos. 35730/07 and 4285/08, 15 December 2011), Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013), and Müller v. Germany (no. 54963/08, 27 March 2014).
• EGMR, 26.08.2003 - 59493/00

  WITHEY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  In so far as the applicants" complaint may be understood to be that they should have had a trial and a formal judgment (eventually leading to their acquittal), the Court notes that Article 6 does not guarantee a right to a particular outcome of criminal proceedings (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 49, Series A no. 35, and Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, 26 August 2003) and that the right to obtain a judgment in respect of criminal accusations is not absolute, in particular when there is no fundamental irreversible detrimental effect on the parties (see Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 113, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  In so far as the applicants" complaint may be understood to be that they should have had a trial and a formal judgment (eventually leading to their acquittal), the Court notes that Article 6 does not guarantee a right to a particular outcome of criminal proceedings (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 49, Series A no. 35, and Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, 26 August 2003) and that the right to obtain a judgment in respect of criminal accusations is not absolute, in particular when there is no fundamental irreversible detrimental effect on the parties (see Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 113, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  I am no particular fan of the case-law that has spawned around Article 6 § 2 following on from Minelli v. Switzerland (25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), as one can immediately gather from even a cursory examination of my separate opinions in Ashendon and Jones v. the United Kingdom (nos. 35730/07 and 4285/08, 15 December 2011), Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013), and Müller v. Germany (no. 54963/08, 27 March 2014).
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  However, in the Court's view, the decision taken by the Budapest main police department is inseparable from the enactment of the Amnesty Act and can be understood as a "single procedural act effected in several stages" (see, mutatis mutandis, Adolf v. Austria, 26 March 1982, § 32, Series A no. 49).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 37777/22

  GEMEINNÜTZIGE PRIVATSTIFTUNG ANAS SCHAKFEH v. AUSTRIA

  In the absence of such indicators which would render an unnamed suspect identifiable, the Court has not considered Article 6 § 2 to be implicated or violated (Kalliola and Others, cited above; Béres and Others v. Hungary, nos. 59588/12 and 2 others, § 32, 17 January 2017; Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, § 104, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Shuvalov v. Estonia, nos.