Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARIYA ALEKHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARIYA ALEKHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)
- lto.de (Kurzinformation)
Gefängnisstrafe für "Pussy Riot": Russland muss Entschädigungen zahlen
- archive.fo (Pressemeldung, 17.07.2018)
Russland muss "Pussy Riot" entschädigen
- taz.de (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 07.02.2013)
Pussy Riot zieht vor den EGMR: Foltert uns nicht!
- 123recht.net (Pressemeldung zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 07.02.2013)
Pussy Riot verklagt Russland
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (31) Neu Zitiert selbst (47)
- EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 35071/97
GUNDUZ v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
Another factor has been whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 50, Reports 1998-IV; Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, §§ 48 and 51, ECHR 2003-XI; Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 39-41 and 43; Balsyte-Lideikiene, cited above, §§ 79-80; Féret, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 78; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, § 73, 12 June 2012; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, cited above, §§ 107-12; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58, 24 July 2012; and Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, §§ 64-67, ECHR 2013).Freedom of expression does not protect deliberate calumny or a discourse with the aim of provoking discrimination (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, and Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, ECHR 2003-XI).
- EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89
JERSILD v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
It reiterates that, in principle, peaceful and non-violent forms of expression should not be made subject to the threat of imposition of a custodial sentence (see Murat Vural, cited above, § 66), and that interference with freedom of expression in the form of criminal sanctions may have a chilling effect on the exercise of that freedom, which is an element to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference in question (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298; Brasilier v. France, no. 71343/01, § 43, 11 April 2006; Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 176, ECHR 2015; and Reichman v. France, no. 50147/11, § 73, 12 July 2016).Freedom of expression does not protect deliberate calumny or a discourse with the aim of provoking discrimination (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, and Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, ECHR 2003-XI).
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 62870/13
BILBIJA AND BLAZEVIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
The fact that the third applicant chose not to pursue her application to the Court under this head is immaterial after the matter had already been dealt with at domestic level (see M.S. v. Croatia, no. 36337/10, § 69, 25 April 2013, and Bilbija and Blazevic v. Croatia, no. 62870/13, § 94, 12 January 2016, in both cases it was not the applicant, but a member of their family who was not an applicant before the Court who had already pursued the same remedy without success, and also D.H. and Others, cited above, § 122, in which only five out of twelve applicants had lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the same grievance).
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 25239/13
Holocaust-Leugnung: Dieudonné gescheitert
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
In assessing that point, the Court has been particularly sensitive towards sweeping statements attacking entire ethnic, religious or other groups or casting them in a negative light (see Seurot v. France (dec.), no. 57383/00, 18 May 2004, Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 40 and 43; and Le Pen, cited above, all of which concerned generalised negative statements about non-European immigrants in France, in particular Muslims; Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI, which concerned statements linking all Muslims in the United Kingdom with the terrorist acts in the United States of America on 11 September 2001; W.P. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 42264/98, 2 September 2004; Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007; M'Bala M'Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, 20 October 2015, which concerned vehement anti-Semitic statements; Féret, cited above, § 71, which concerned statements portraying non-European immigrant communities in Belgium as criminally minded; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others, § 73, and Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, § 107, both cited above, which concerned direct calls for violence against Jews, the State of Israel, and the West in general; and Vejdeland and Others, cited above, § 54, which concerned allegations that homosexuals were attempting to play down paedophilia and were responsible for the spread of HIV and Aids). - EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 24699/94
VgT VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
The Court reiterates that the expression "prescribed by law" in the second paragraph of Article 10 not only requires that the impugned measure should have a legal basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, which should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, among other authorities, VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, § 52, ECHR 2001-VI; Gaweda v. Poland, no. 26229/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; and Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 120, ECHR 2015). - EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95
FELDEK c. SLOVAQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
It has been the Court's consistent approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political debate, for broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 50147/11
REICHMAN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
It reiterates that, in principle, peaceful and non-violent forms of expression should not be made subject to the threat of imposition of a custodial sentence (see Murat Vural, cited above, § 66), and that interference with freedom of expression in the form of criminal sanctions may have a chilling effect on the exercise of that freedom, which is an element to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference in question (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 35, Series A no. 298; Brasilier v. France, no. 71343/01, § 43, 11 April 2006; Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 176, ECHR 2015; and Reichman v. France, no. 50147/11, § 73, 12 July 2016). - EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35943/10
VONA v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
Another factor has been whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Incal v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 50, Reports 1998-IV; Sürek (no. 1), cited above, § 62; Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III; Gündüz v. Turkey, no. 35071/97, §§ 48 and 51, ECHR 2003-XI; Soulas and Others, cited above, §§ 39-41 and 43; Balsyte-Lideikiene, cited above, §§ 79-80; Féret, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 78; Hizb ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, § 73, 12 June 2012; Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov, cited above, §§ 107-12; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58, 24 July 2012; and Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, §§ 64-67, ECHR 2013). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
It has been the Court's consistent approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on political debate, for broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06
BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12
It considers that the first and second applicant were not required to attempt the same remedy after the ineffectiveness of a substantive appeal had become apparent with the Moscow City Court's decision of 30 January 2013 (compare Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia, no. 19841/06, § 62, 11 October 2016). - EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05
TARANENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 23131/03
NORWOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 26229/95
GAWEDA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95
FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.12.2005 - 54968/00
PATUREL c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.02.2005 - 35839/97
PAKDEMIRLI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85
Oberschlick ./. Österreich
- EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93
OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 57383/00
SEUROT contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.05.1988 - 10737/84
MÜLLER AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
ILHAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85
CASTELLS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04
PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 31098/08
HIZB UT-TAHRIR AND OTHERS v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
FÁBER v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02
LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99
Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt
- EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
MAESTRI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94
KARATAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 42264/98
W.P. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
- EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87
OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13
YAROSLAV BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9228/80
GLASENAPP c. ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54468/09
HUHTAMAKI v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 27473/02
ERDOGAN YAGIZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.08.1986 - 9704/82
KOSIEK c. ALLEMAGNE
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00
Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
- EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08
M.S. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96
COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 58032/19
SUNTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 92-156, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in that respect of the complaint about inadequate conditions of transport; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, 17 July 2018, as regards placement of detainees in a metal cage or a glass cabin during court hearings; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013, concerning the authorities' failure to ensure adequate medical assistance to seriously ill prisoners, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 201, in relation to poor conditions of post-conviction detention and absence of an effective remedy in that regards, and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 47784/18
ZINCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, concerning administrative convictions for making calls to participate in public events; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 197-201, 17 July 2018, and Bouton v. France, no. 22636/19, §§ 42-68, 13 October 2022, concerning restrictions of performance as a sign of protest; Yartsev v. Russia, no. 16683/17, §§ 28-38, 20 July 2021, related to the administrative conviction for waving banners with slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 178-88, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention; Korneyeva, cited above, §§ 62-65, as to the right of the organisers or participants of public assemblies not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence. - EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 12166/19
ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom).
- EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 36904/19
BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, as regards unlawful detention; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 14.03.2024 - 32180/21
YELYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); mutatis mutandis, Sürek v.Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 58, ECHR 1999-IV, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 197-201, 17 July 2018, concerning administrative conviction for discreditation of the Russian Army in the context of anti-war protest actions; Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, and Tsvetkova and Others, cited above, §§ 178-88, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention. - EGMR, 02.11.2023 - 56247/15
KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom).66152/14 and 8 others, §§ 85-105, 20 April 2021, as regards the police entrapment in the context of investigating offences concerning illegal distribution of drugs; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 145-50 and 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities.
- EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 25276/15
VERZILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In addition, a court ruled that videos of the band's performances were of an extremist nature and ordered that access to that material be limited (see Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, 17 July 2018).Having regard to the relevant general principles governing the application of Article 10 of the Convention and, in so far as relevant to the present case concerning the applicants' expression of their opinion through a public performance, Article 11 of the Convention (see Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 197-200, 17 July 2018, and Identoba and Others, cited above, §§ 93-95), as well as to its thorough factual and legal findings set out above under Article 3, which are equally pertinent in the circumstances of the present case to the complaints relating to freedom of expression, the Court considers that the State was responsible for the violent attack on the applicants by Cossacks, preventing the applicants from proceeding with their artistic performance in Sochi on 19 February 2014.
- EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 32401/10
TAGANROG LRO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court has found that situation unacceptable and stressed that all issues of law should be determined exclusively by judges (see Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, § 262, 17 July 2018, and Dmitriyevskiy v. Russia, no. 42168/06, § 113, 3 October 2017). - EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 13567/13
BURKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom). - EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 10881/21
SOLDATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom). - EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14
HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 44850/18
KIRPICHEV (KIRPICHENKO) AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 19753/18
ZUBAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 14379/18 (anhängig)
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
- EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 26259/18
YANDIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12
BODALEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14
MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 48967/22
DENIS ET BEN OMRANE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 24847/20
BOYKO-VELIKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 47274/19
MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 24453/17
YELISTRATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 47942/17
CHIRIKOV AND NEKRASOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 45975/12
IMREK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 67312/12
FIRSTOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 6510/21
TIMOKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 15394/19
FROLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 68537/13
IBRAGIMOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 36226/11
HATICE ÇOBAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 73783/11
BAKIRHAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 9662/10
YURTDAS ET SÖYLEMEZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 42113/09
NOVAYA GAZETA AND BORODYANSKIY v. RUSSIA