Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO (No. 2)

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  VELLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012; Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 44, 11 February 2014; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 42, 18 December 2014; and Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 62, 3 October 2019).

  It is necessary to reiterate, in this connection, that if the mere finding of liability for payment of damages, in spite of an acquittal or discontinuance, were to raise an issue under Article 6 § 2, one would have to abolish such civil liability actions, which are in fact present and common in many judicial systems and which are in principle compatible with the Convention, as evidenced by case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 60, 11 February 2014).

• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 61985/12

  FLEISCHNER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012; Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 44, 11 February 2014; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 42, 18 December 2014; and Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 62, 3 October 2019).

  Even the use of expressions from the sphere of criminal law has not led the Court to find a violation of the right to the presumption of innocence where, read in the context of the judgment as a whole, the use of the said expressions could not reasonably have been understood as an affirmation imputing criminal liability (see Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, §§ 64-65, 3 October 2019).

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  In contrast, the Court has previously considered that the presumption of innocence will be violated in cases concerning statements after the discontinuation of criminal proceedings if, without the accused's having previously been proved guilty according to law and, in particular, without his having had an opportunity to exercise the rights of the defence, a judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty (see, inter alia, Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62, and Englert v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 37, Series A no. 123; see also, most recently, G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others, cited above, §§ 315-16, and Stirmanov v. Russia, no. 31816/08, § 45, 29 January 2019).

  The voicing of suspicions about the possible guilt of a defendant is no longer admissible once a final judgment of acquittal has been handed down; the right to be presumed innocent will be violated in cases concerning statements made after the discontinuance of criminal proceedings where, without the person previously having been proved guilty according to law and, in particular, without his having had an opportunity to exercise defence rights, a judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty (see, inter alia, Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  Viewed as a procedural guarantee in the context of a criminal trial itself, the presumption of innocence imposes requirements in respect of, inter alia, the burden of proof, legal presumptions of fact and law, the privilege against self-incrimination, pre-trial publicity and premature expressions, by the trial court or by other public officials, of a defendant's guilt (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013 and the case-law cited therein for examples of the above situations).

  The main reference is to the Grand Chamber's judgment in Allen v. United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013).

• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Y c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012; Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 44, 11 February 2014; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 42, 18 December 2014; and Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 62, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 25720/05

  TENDAM AGAINST SPAIN AND 1 OTHER CASE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  The second aspect of the protection of the presumption of innocence comes into play when the criminal proceedings end with a result other than a conviction (see, for example, Tendam v. Spain, no. 25720/05, §§ 35-41, 13 July 2010, and Vlieeland Boddy and Marcelo Lanni v. Spain, nos. 53465/11 and 9634/12, §§ 38-49, 16 February 2016).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012; Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 44, 11 February 2014; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 42, 18 December 2014; and Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 62, 3 October 2019).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  However, they considered that the Court had drawn a distinction between cases where criminal proceedings had been simply discontinued and cases where a final judgment of acquittal had been delivered (see Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A).
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39627/05

  TALIADOROU AND STYLIANOU v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  39627/05 and 39631/05, §§ 27 and 56-59, 16 October 2008).
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 53465/11

  VLIEELAND BODDY ET MARCELO LANNI c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  The second aspect of the protection of the presumption of innocence comes into play when the criminal proceedings end with a result other than a conviction (see, for example, Tendam v. Spain, no. 25720/05, §§ 35-41, 13 July 2010, and Vlieeland Boddy and Marcelo Lanni v. Spain, nos. 53465/11 and 9634/12, §§ 38-49, 16 February 2016).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 21534/05

  CONSTANTIN FLOREA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27473/11

  N.A. v. NORWAY

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 17053/20

  BAVCAR v. SLOVENIA

  Lastly, having regard to the nature of the violation found in the present case and to its case-law on the matter (see Pasquini v. San Marino (no. 2), no. 23349/17, § 69, 20 October 2020), the Court awards the applicant EUR 10, 000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  Enfin, la Cour note que, dans le dispositif de l'arrêt, la cour d'appel a expressément indiqué le requérant comme civilement responsable du délit de diffamation (voir, Ilias Papageorgiou, précité, § 55, et, a contrario, Pasquini c. Saint-Marin (no 2), no 23349/17, § 64, 20 octobre 2020) et l'a condamné à la réparation du préjudice subi par les parties civiles, héritiers des époux M. (paragraphe 10 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 27027/18

  2002 EVRO BUS UVOZ-IZVOZ PRILEP DOO v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The general principles concerning the protection provided by Article 6 § 2 are set out in Pasquini v. San Marino (no. 2) (no. 23349/17, §§ 48-54, 20 October 2020).

 
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 20148/09

  RIGOLIO c. ITALIE

  La Cour constitutionnelle s'est appuyée à cet égard sur les affaires Allen c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], no 25424/09, § 94, 12 juillet 2013) et Pasquini c. Saint Marin (no 2) (no 23349/17, 20 octobre 2020), où la Cour a jugé que le juge chargé de statuer en matière de dédommagement civil à la suite d'un acquittement ou d'un non-lieu rendu au pénal devait non pas chercher à établir si les éléments constitutifs de la responsabilité pénale étaient réunis, mais s'en tenir au point de savoir si les éléments constitutifs de la responsabilité civile (illecito aquiliano) l'étaient.
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 44546/13

  ISTRATE c. ROUMANIE

  Une attention particulière doit être portée lors de la formulation du raisonnement dans un jugement civil après l'arrêt de la procédure pénale ; lors de l'appréciation des déclarations litigieuses, la Cour doit déterminer leur véritable sens, eu égard aux circonstances particulières dans lesquelles elles ont été faites (Pasquini c. Saint-Marin (no 2), no 23349/17, §§ 53-54, 20 octobre 2020, avec les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 15.06.2023 - 44764/16

  ROCCELLA c. ITALIE

  Se penchant sur les arguments du requérant, la Cour considère tout d'abord que le fait que l'action civile se soit poursuivie devant le juge pénal, c'est-à-dire devant la juridiction qui avait eu à connaître de l'affaire dès son origine, ne constitue pas en soi un élément déterminant pour évaluer la nature de la procédure (voir, mutatis mutandis, Pasquini c. Saint-Marin (no 2), no 23349/17, § 38, 20 octobre 2020).
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 6207/16

  SENOTRUSOVY v. RUSSIA

  In examining whether the new appeal proceedings of 19 May 2016 constituted sufficient redress in respect of the first applicant's grievances (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 67, 70 and 83, 2 November 2010), the Court must take note of the nature and the context of the proceedings as a whole and their special features (see Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 65, 3 October 2019, and Pasquini v. San Marino (no. 2), no. 23349/17, § 51, 20 October 2020).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 16390/17

  LASHUN c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'après l'abandon de poursuites pénales la présomption d'innocence exige de tenir compte, dans toute procédure ultérieure, de quelque nature qu'elle soit, du fait que la personne concernée n'a pas été condamnée (Allen c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 25424/09, § 102, CEDH 2013, et Pasquini c. Saint-Marin (no2), no 23349/17, § 49, 20 octobre 2020).