Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 34 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) No violation of Art. 6-2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  The Court has frequently held that neither Article 6 § 2 nor any other provision of the Convention gives a person "charged with a criminal offence" the right to the reimbursement of his costs or the right to compensation for lawful pre-trial detention where proceedings taken against him were discontinued or resulted in an acquittal (see, among many other authorities, Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, § 25, and Hibbert v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30087/97, 26 January 1999).

  [1] See, inter alia, Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 30, Series A no. 266-A; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, § 31, 21 March; Lamanna v. Austria, no. 28923/95, § 38, 10 July 2001; and Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, § 48, 11 February 2003; though these cases are distinguishable from the instant case on their facts and not least insofar as this case involved entirely separate civil proceedings instituted post-acquittal.

  [7] Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 29 and 30, Series A no. 266-A.

• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 30287/96

  HAMMERN CONTRE LA NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  However, the Court has been led to find violations of Article 6 § 2 in that the reasons given for refusing monetary compensation following the termination of criminal proceedings reflected an opinion that the accused was guilty of a crime, notwithstanding the absence of any actual conviction (see, as examples concerning the same respondent Party, Baars v. the Netherlands, no. 44320/98, § 31, 28 October 2003, and Del Latte v. the Netherlands, no. 44760/98, § 33, 9 November 2004; as examples of similar findings against a different respondent Party, see Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, § 47, 11 February 2003, and O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, § 39, ECHR 2003-II).

  [1] See, inter alia, Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 30, Series A no. 266-A; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, § 31, 21 March; Lamanna v. Austria, no. 28923/95, § 38, 10 July 2001; and Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, § 48, 11 February 2003; though these cases are distinguishable from the instant case on their facts and not least insofar as this case involved entirely separate civil proceedings instituted post-acquittal.

• EKMR, 07.10.1987 - 11882/85

  C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  [3] See, for example, M.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 11882/85, Commission decision of 7 October 1987, D.R. 54, p. 162; and Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II.

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  [4] Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62.
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  [2] Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308.
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Y c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  The Court has also, on occasion, found Article 6 § 2 to have been violated in that a judgment by a civil court awarding damages against a former defendant in a criminal case contained reasoning incompatible with the latter's acquittal (Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 46, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, § 53, 15 May 2008).
• EGMR, 28.10.2003 - 44320/98

  Unschuldsvermutung: Schutz vor (Kosten-)Entscheidungen, welche den Angeklagten …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  However, the Court has been led to find violations of Article 6 § 2 in that the reasons given for refusing monetary compensation following the termination of criminal proceedings reflected an opinion that the accused was guilty of a crime, notwithstanding the absence of any actual conviction (see, as examples concerning the same respondent Party, Baars v. the Netherlands, no. 44320/98, § 31, 28 October 2003, and Del Latte v. the Netherlands, no. 44760/98, § 33, 9 November 2004; as examples of similar findings against a different respondent Party, see Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, § 47, 11 February 2003, and O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, § 39, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 4248/02

  REEVES v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  In contrast, in Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II, the Court accepted that "while exoneration from criminal liability ought to stand in... compensation proceedings [brought by the victim of the acts at issue against the former accused], it should not preclude the establishment of civil liability to pay compensation arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof", although "[if] the national decision on compensation were to contain a statement imputing criminal liability to the [former accused], this would raise an issue falling within the ambit of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention" (see also Reeves v. Norway (dec.), no. 4248/02, 8 July 2004).
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 44760/98

  DEL LATTE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  However, the Court has been led to find violations of Article 6 § 2 in that the reasons given for refusing monetary compensation following the termination of criminal proceedings reflected an opinion that the accused was guilty of a crime, notwithstanding the absence of any actual conviction (see, as examples concerning the same respondent Party, Baars v. the Netherlands, no. 44320/98, § 31, 28 October 2003, and Del Latte v. the Netherlands, no. 44760/98, § 33, 9 November 2004; as examples of similar findings against a different respondent Party, see Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, § 47, 11 February 2003, and O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, § 39, ECHR 2003-II).

• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 60879/12

  RUPP v. GERMANY

  Der Gerichtshof hat Verletzungen von Artikel 6 Abs. 2 festgestellt, wenn die für die Versagung einer finanziellen Entschädigung nach Beendigung des Verfahrens angeführten Gründe die Auffassung widerspiegelten, dass der Beschuldigte einer Straftat schuldig sei, ohne dass er dieser tatsächlich schuldig gesprochen wurde (siehe Bok./. Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 45482/06, Rdnr. 38, 18. Januar 2011; Tendam./. Spanien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 25720/05, Rdnr. 36, 13.
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 46878/06

  TEODOR c. ROUMANIE

  Le Gouvernement souligne que c'était le requérant lui-même - à qui incombait la charge de prouver le bien-fondé de ses allégations - qui avait fondé ses actions sur le non-lieu du parquet, ignorant que des exigences différentes de preuve s'appliquent en matière civile (Trailescu c. Roumanie (déc.), nos 5666/04 et 14664/05, 24 août 2010, et Bok c. Pays-Bas, no 45482/06, §§ 43-45, 18 janvier 2011).

  Il nous semble que l'approche de la majorité, notamment au paragraphe 42, remet en cause l'arrêt rendu dans l'affaire Bok c. Pays-Bas (no 45482/06, §§ 45-46, 18 janvier 2011), dans laquelle le requérant, accusé mais non condamné au pénal, devait prouver devant les juridictions civiles le bien-fondé de ses revendications.

• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 55857/07

  ANTOHE c. ROUMANIE

  En effet, il lui suffit de constater, au vu du contexte général de la présente affaire, que les termes en question n'indiquaient pas que le requérant était coupable d'une infraction pénale (voir, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras c. Lituanie, no 42095/98, § 44, CEDH 2000-X, Ringvold c. Norvège, no 34964/97, § 38, CEDH 2003-II, Reeves c. Norvège (déc.), no 4248/02, 8 juillet 2004, A.L. c. Allemagne, no 72758/01, § 38, 28 avril 2005, et Bok c. Pays-Bas, no 45482/06, § 47, 18 janvier 2011).