Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G.C.P. v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-2 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  G.C.P. v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 20899/03
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  The Government also submitted that, unlike in the cases of Samoila and Cionca v. Romania (no. 33065/03, 4 March 2008), Vitan v. Romania (no. 42084/02, 25 March 2008) and Khuzhin v. Russia (no. 13470/02, 23 October 2008), D.I.C."s statement had not been of a nature such as to influence or to prejudice the decisions of the judges examining the case and/or public opinion to the applicant's disadvantage, had been strictly and legally focused on the development of the criminal investigation against the applicant and had not been represented as established fact without any qualification or reservation.

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008, with further references).

• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 33065/03

  SAMOILA ET CIONCA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  The Government also submitted that, unlike in the cases of Samoila and Cionca v. Romania (no. 33065/03, 4 March 2008), Vitan v. Romania (no. 42084/02, 25 March 2008) and Khuzhin v. Russia (no. 13470/02, 23 October 2008), D.I.C."s statement had not been of a nature such as to influence or to prejudice the decisions of the judges examining the case and/or public opinion to the applicant's disadvantage, had been strictly and legally focused on the development of the criminal investigation against the applicant and had not been represented as established fact without any qualification or reservation.

  It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 38, Series A no. 62), but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X; and Samoila and Cionca v. Romania, no. 33065/03, § 92, 4 March 2008).

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  Moreover, the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37; Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 87, Series A no. 161; and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 99, Series A no. 201).

 
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  Moreover, the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37; Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 87, Series A no. 161; and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 99, Series A no. 201).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 38, Series A no. 62), but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X; and Samoila and Cionca v. Romania, no. 33065/03, § 92, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  The Court reiterates that the expression "criminal charge" is to be interpreted as having an "autonomous" meaning in the context of the Convention and not on the basis of any meaning in domestic law (see notably, mutatis mutandis, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 42, Series A no. 35).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 38, Series A no. 62), but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X; and Samoila and Cionca v. Romania, no. 33065/03, § 92, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  Moreover, the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37; Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 87, Series A no. 161; and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 99, Series A no. 201).
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  The legislation of the State concerned is certainly relevant, but it provides no more than a starting point in ascertaining whether at any time there was a "criminal charge" against the applicant or he was "charged with a criminal offence" (see, mutatis mutandis, Engel and others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 82, Series A no. 22, and König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 89, Series A no. 27).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 20899/03

  The presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).