Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HEANEY AND McGUINNESS v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-2 No separate issue under Art. 8 No separate issue under Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HEANEY ET McGUINNESS c. IRLANDE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 6-2 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 8 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 10 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.09.1999 - 34720/97
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97

  L'arrêt Funke c. France (25 février 1993, série A no 256-A) est lui aussi différent, M. Funke ayant fait l'objet d'une sanction applicable tant qu'il refusait de fournir les informations demandées.
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97

  L'article 6 § 2 a déjà été appliqué et des violations de cette disposition ont été constatées dans les affaires Minelli et Sekanina (arrêts Minelli c. Suisse du 25 mars 1983, série A no 62, et Sekanina c. Autriche du 25 août 1993, série A no 266-A), alors que les juridictions nationales saisies avaient clôturé les poursuites pour cause de prescription dans la première et acquitté l'intéressé dans la seconde.
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97

  L'article 6 § 2 a déjà été appliqué et des violations de cette disposition ont été constatées dans les affaires Minelli et Sekanina (arrêts Minelli c. Suisse du 25 mars 1983, série A no 62, et Sekanina c. Autriche du 25 août 1993, série A no 266-A), alors que les juridictions nationales saisies avaient clôturé les poursuites pour cause de prescription dans la première et acquitté l'intéressé dans la seconde.
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97

  La Cour a également jugé l'article 6 § 2 applicable aux déclarations publiques de policiers suggérant la culpabilité d'un accusé, bien qu'un non-lieu fût par la suite prononcé (arrêt Allenet de Ribemont c. France du 10 février 1995, série A no 308, pp. 15-17, §§ 32-37).
• EKMR, 01.07.1992 - 13156/87

  BYRN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 34720/97

  La Cour rappelle que la relaxe d'un accusé exclut en général que cette personne se prétende victime d'une violation des garanties procédurales de l'article 6 (voir, par exemple, Byrn c. Danemark, requête no 13156/87, décision de la Commission du 1er juillet 1992, Décisions et rapports 73, p. 5).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.12.2019 - C-311/18

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe ist der Beschluss 2010/87/EU der …

  Vgl. zum Kern des in Art. 6 EMRK gewährleisteten Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren u. a. EGMR, 25. Mai 1985, Ashingdane/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:1985:0528JUD000822578, §§ 57 und 59), 21. Dezember 2000, Heaney und McGuinness/Irland (CE:ECHR:2000:1221JUD003472097, §§ 55 und 58), und 23. Juni 2016, Baka/Ungarn (CE:ECHR:2016:0623JUD002026112, § 121).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  In examining whether a procedure has extinguished the very essence of the privilege against self-incrimination, the Court must examine the nature and degree of the compulsion, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedures and the use to which any material so obtained is put (see, for example, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2000"XII, and J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04

  PISHCHALNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see, inter alia, Saunders v. the United Kingdom, 17 December 1996, § 68, Reports 1996-VI; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-XII; J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, § 64, ECHR 2001-III).

 
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Selbst das legitime Ziel, die Gesellschaft insgesamt vor der ernsten Bedrohung durch den internationalen Terrorismus zu schützen, kann keine Maßnahmen rechtfertigen, die das in Artikel 6 verankerte Recht auf ein faires Verfahren im Kern aufheben (siehe, sinngemäß, Heaney und McGuinness ./. Irland , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 34720/97, Randnr. 57 - 58, ECHR 2000-XII; und Papon ./. Frankreich , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 54210/00, Randnr. 98; ECHR 2002-VII).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.10.2020 - C-481/19

  Consob - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Rechtsangleichung - Marktmissbrauch - …

  67 EGMR, 21. Dezember 2000, Heaney und McGuinness/Irland (CE:ECHR:2000:1221JUD003472097, § 53) (Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten).

  69 Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 21. Dezember 2000, Heaney und McGuinness/Irland (CE:ECHR:2000:1221JUD003472097, § 47).

• EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE

  Thus, for example, a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (see, among other authorities, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2010), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (see Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 February 2010; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, § 23, 23 September 2010; and Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 296) and a person who has been formally charged, under a procedure set out in domestic law, with a criminal offence (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 66, ECHR 1999-II, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 44, ECHR 2004-XI) can all be regarded as being "charged with a criminal offence" and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.

  It is true, of course, that the absence of compelling reasons is not sufficient of itself to found a violation (see Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 47, ECHR 2000-XII; Weh v. Austria, no. 38544/97, § 46, 8 April 2004; O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 58452/00

  LUCKHOF and SPANNER v. AUSTRIA

  In O"Halloran and Francis (cited above) the Court, having given a detailed summary of its case-law (namely, Funke, cited above; John Murray, cited above; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI; Serves v. France, judgment of 20 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, ECHR 2000-XII; Weh v. Austria, no. 38544/97, 8 April 2004; Shannon v. the United Kingdom, no. 6563/03, 4 October 2005; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006-...) found as follows:.
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 80982/12

  MUHAMMAD ET MUHAMMAD c. ROUMANIE

  [76] See Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 58, ECHR 2000-XII, and Serves v. France, 20 October 1997,§ 47, Reports 1997-VI.
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19

  TULEYA v. POLAND

  Thus, for example, a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence (see, among other authorities, Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII, and Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07, §§ 47-50, 14 October 2010), a suspect questioned about his involvement in acts constituting a criminal offence (see Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02, §§ 41-43, 18 February 2010; Yankov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 4570/05, § 23, 23 September 2010; and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 296, 13 September 2016) and a person who has been formally charged, under a procedure set out in domestic law, with a criminal offence (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 66, ECHR 1999-II, and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 44, ECHR 2004-XI) can all be regarded as being "charged with a criminal offence" and claim the protection of Article 6 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 50541/08

  IBRAHIM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  "Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6. The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see, inter alia, Saunders v. the United Kingdom [GC], 17 December 1996, § 68, Reports 1996-VI; Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-XII; and the judgment in Jalloh, cited above, § 100).".
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 76574/01

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.02.2019 - 4755/16

  BEGHAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 58342/15

  DE LEGÉ v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 5935/02

  HEGLAS c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 40233/07

  KALNENIENE c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 42096/98

  SKAWINSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 15809/02

  O'HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 23572/07

  ZSCHÜSCHEN c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 2118/10

  TALU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 39668/98

  PINSON contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 13510/14

  SEVERINI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 13885/05

  SÜZER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 36576/03

  LESZCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 49911/99

  WALCZUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 30178/09

  K.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 50595/99

  REVOLDINI ET AUTRES contre le LUXEMBOURG