|EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05|
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA
Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six month period;Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05
- EGMR, 14.11.2018 - 15256/05
Wird zitiert von ... (7)
- EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)According to the Court's established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based (see Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, § 102, 21 June 2016).
See also Joint Concurring Opinion of judges Sajó, Tsotsoria and Pinto de Albuquerque and Concurring Opinion of judge Kuris in the case Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, 21 June 2016; as well as Joint Concurring Opinion of judges Jungwiert, Nußberger and Potocki in the case Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013.
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13
MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIAMore recently, in the case of Tchankotadze v. Georgia (no. 15256/05, §§ 114-15, 21 June 2016), the Court found that public threats that the applicant, a high-ranking civil servant, would be "jailed", uttered by Mr Saakashvili, then a presidential candidate and later elected, were insufficient to find an ulterior purpose behind his prosecution and related pre-trial detention, in the absence of proof that the prosecuting or judicial authorities had themselves been driven by political motives.
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07
KASPAROV v. RUSSIAThis is due largely to the accessory nature of the provision and to the high standard of proof required under it, which has rightly been criticised by some of my colleagues (see, inter alia, Tchankotadze v. Georgia, no. 15256/05, 21 June 2016, joint concurring opinion of Judges Sajó, Tsotsoria and Pinto de Albuquerque, §§ 7-10, and, in the same judgment, the concurring opinion of Judge Kuris).
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.