Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAVALNYYE v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Criminal offence) (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• archive.is (Pressebericht, 17.10.2017)

  Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

In Nachschlagewerken

• Wikipedia
  +3

  Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben Bezug

  EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

  EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  (Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NAVALNYYE v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  In the same period, the first applicant ran an increasingly public anti-corruption campaign targeting high-ranking public officials (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 15, 23 February 2016).

  There are also two separate cases currently pending before the Grand Chamber in which applicants have brought complaints under Article 18: Merabishvili v. Georgia (no. 72508/13, 14 June 2016) and Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 4 April 2016).

  The present case can be distinguished from Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016), on which the judgment is based, since in that case there was no allegation similar to that raised in the present case and referred to in paragraph 4 above.

• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  The Court's case-law states that Article 18 of the Convention can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles of the Convention, and a violation can only arise where the right or freedom concerned is subject to restrictions permitted under the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).

  In Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 77, ECHR 2004-IV), for example, the Court held that "the restriction of the applicant's liberty permitted under Article 5 § 1 (c) was applied not only for the purpose of bringing [the applicant] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, but also for other reasons".

  From the wording of Article 18 it is clear that it applies only to rights and freedoms which are subject to restrictions permitted in the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).

• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Failure to fulfil this requirement will result in the individual measures to be taken in the execution of a judgment in question remaining outstanding, as follows from the Committee of Ministers" decision (CM/Del/Dec(2016)1265/H46-24), adopted at the 1265th meeting of the Ministers" Deputies on 20-21 September 2016, in relation to the execution of the Court's judgment in Pichugin v. Russia (no. 38623/03, 23 October 2012), as well as from its decision (CM/Del/Dec(2017)1294/H46-25), adopted at the 1294th meeting of the Ministers" Deputies on 19-21 September 2017, in relation to the execution of the Court's judgment in Navalnyy and Ofitserov, cited above.

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  In its previous cases the Court has explicitly permitted the invocation of Article 18 together with Article 5 of the Convention (see Ilgar Mammadov, cited above, §§ 137-44), with Article 8 of the Convention (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 64, Series A no. 24), and with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, §§ 659-66, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Article 6, unlike Article 3, does not protect an absolute right, and according to both its wording and the Court's case-law the provision does include inherent or implied restrictions (see Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, §§ 54 and 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 72, Reports 1996-II; Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 49, Series A no. 35; Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 67, ECHR 2009 (extracts); and Guérin v. France, 29 July 1998, § 37, Reports 1998-V).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  In 2011-2012 he organised and led a number of rallies, including an assembly at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow on 6 May 2012 (see, among other sources, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 7-65, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.10.2011 - 50425/06

  SOROS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Even when a point is ruled on for the first time in an applicant's case, a violation of Article 7 of the Convention will not arise if the meaning given is both foreseeable and consistent with the essence of the offence (see Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 114, ECHR 2007-III; Custers and Others v. Denmark, nos. 11843/03, 11847/03 and 11849/03, 3 May 2007; Soros v. France, no. 50425/06, § 126, 6 October 2011; and Huhtamäki, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  It should be construed and applied, as follows from its object and purpose, in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 92, 17 September 2009, and Huhtamäki v. Finland, no. 54468/09, § 41, 6 March 2012).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54468/09

  HUHTAMAKI v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  It should be construed and applied, as follows from its object and purpose, in such a way as to provide effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction and punishment (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 92, 17 September 2009, and Huhtamäki v. Finland, no. 54468/09, § 41, 6 March 2012).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 12157/05

  LIIVIK v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

  YÜKSEL YALÇINKAYA v. TÜRKIYE

  Nous relevons également qu'une lecture correcte des arrêts Korbely c. Hongrie ([GC], no 9174/02, CEDH 2008) et Navalnyye c. Russie (no 101/15, 17 octobre 2017) ne va guère dans le sens de la position de la majorité (paragraphe 260 de l'arrêt) selon laquelle il incombe à la Cour, au titre même de son appréciation sous l'angle de l'article 7 de la Convention, « de vérifier si l'existence des éléments constitutifs de l'infraction, et en particulier de l'élément subjectif (l'élément moral), a été dûment caractérisée dans le cas du requérant, conformément aux exigences du droit applicable ".
• EGMR - 27119/18 (anhängig)

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

  The case mainly concerns Mr Aleksey Navalnyy's apprehension and detention upon returning to Russia from Germany on 17 January 2021 and his imprisonment resulting from a conviction that the Court had previously found to be in violation of his rights under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Navalnyye v. Russia, no. 101/15, 17 October 2017).

  He received a suspended sentence of 3, 5 years with 5-year's parole, which remained effective despite the Court's findings of a violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention (see Navalnyye v. Russia, no. 101/15, 17 October 2017).

• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 33707/14

  RUBTSOV AND BALAYAN v. RUSSIA

  It was up to the national courts to dissipate any interpretational doubts regarding the rule's application (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III, Navalnyye v. Russia, no. 101/15, § 55, 17 October 2017).