Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Free legal assistance);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• Akte Recht (Lehrstuhl Prof. Safferling) (Kurzinformation)

  Anwendung des Art. 6 EMRK

Besprechungen u.ä.

• fau.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Anwendung von Art. 6 und 7 EMRK auf formelles Ordnungswidrigkeitenrecht

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06

  BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  Noting the nature of the issues raised in the present case, which also arguably concerns an important matter of principle, as well as the scope of the limitations, the Court does not find it appropriate to dismiss the present application with reference to Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 34, 10 July 2012, and also paragraph 40 above).

  [4] In Berladir v. Russia (no. 34202/06, 10 July 2012) the Court had already accepted that a fine of the same amount was not sufficient in itself to render the application inadmissible.

• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  However, in the Court's view, what matters is that the fine was not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage but was punitive and deterrent in nature, which is also a characteristic of criminal penalties (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 43; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 83, 31 July 2014; Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 38, ECHR 2006-XIV; and, by contrast, Escoubet [GC], § 37, and Müller-Hartburg, §§ 47-48, both cited above).

  [8] See Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 73, 4 December 2014; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 76-77 and § 93, 31 July 2014; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 117-118, 30 May 2013; and Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, § 83, 26 July 2007.

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  [15] See Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 125, ECHR 2007-V.

 
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  This is to be judged by reference to the facts of the case as a whole, having regard, inter alia, to the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the possible sentence, the complexity of the case and the personal situation of the applicant (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, 24 May 1991, §§ 32-36, Series A no. 205; Zdravko Stanev v. Bulgaria, no. 32238/04, § 38, 6 November 2012); and Guney v. Sweden (dec.), no. 40768/06, 17 June 2008).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  [14] See Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, 17 January 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, ECHR 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V.
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  Lastly, the Court finds it pertinent to note by way of comparison that even outside the criminal law sphere Article 6 § 1 may compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for effective access to court (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  The Court reiterates that the rights set out in Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention are elements of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings contained in Article 6 § 1 (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 37, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 31443/96

  BRONIOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  [14] See Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, 17 January 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, ECHR 2009; and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V.
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that the concept of a "criminal charge" in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is an autonomous one, which means, inter alia, that proceedings concerning certain categories of subject matter may fall outside the scope of this Article (see for comparison domestic decisions regarding "entry, stay and deportation of aliens": Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 40, ECHR 2000-X, and Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 126, 11 December 2008, also concerning a case under the Russian CAO).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  The Court further reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84

  WEBER c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland
• EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88

  RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 24360/04

  GIURAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 72051/17

  KORNEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has discerned no causal link between the fines and the only violation under Article 6 of the Convention as established by the Court in the present case (compare Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, § 106, 19 November 2015, and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 182, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 18297/13

  D.L. v. GERMANY

  Er weist erneut darauf hin, dass die in Artikel 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c der Konvention verankerten Rechte Bestandteile des Begriffs des fairen Verfahrens im Strafprozess im Sinne von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 sind (siehe Mikhaylova./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 46998/08, Rdnr. 76, 19 November 2015), und wird die Rüge des Beschwerdeführers nach beiden Bestimmungen im Zusammenhang prüfen.
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 23158/20

  MAKARASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Therefore, it will determine whether the manner in which the applicants' trial was conducted resulted, given the particular circumstances of the present case, in a breach of their rights under Article 6 of the Convention (see Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, § 86, 19 November 2015).

 
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 35000/13

  TSUKANOV AND TORCHINSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Second, the Court has previously found that Article 6 of the Convention was applicable under its criminal limb to proceedings involving charges under Article 20.2 of the CAO punishable by a fine (see Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, § 69, 19 November 2015).
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 56109/13

  KAPUSTINA v. RUSSIA

  Non-payment or a delay in payment of the fine could entail a separate prosecution for an offence under Article 20.25 of the CAO, which is punishable by a penalty of detention or another fine (see Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, §§ 29 and 63, 19 November 2015).
• EGMR - 53980/15 (anhängig)

  H.R. v. RUSSIA

  In the light of Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, 19 November 2015, was Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences against the applicant? If so, was the hearing in the applicant's case on 26 February 2015 at the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala held in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?.
• EGMR - 41846/17 (anhängig)

  VINGORODOV v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the unavailability of legal assistance "free of charge" for the applicant's trial and for lodging an appeal against the trial judgment (see Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, 19 November 2015)?.
• EGMR, 14.05.2019 - 54574/10

  ARTEMENKO v. UKRAINE

  The present case raises no issue which would require the Court to clarify or develop those principles (contrast, for example, Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, § 49, 19 November 2015).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 16694/13

  ASAINOV AND SIBIRYAK v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found that Article 6 of the Convention was applicable under its criminal limb to proceedings involving charges under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences punishable by a fine or administrative detention (see Frumkin, cited above, § 155; Mikhaylova v. Russia, no. 46998/08, §§ 71-74, 19 November 2015; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 78, 4 December 2014; and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 83, 31 July 2014).