Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15374/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GÜÇ v. TURKEY
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) (englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
GÜÇ v. TURKEY
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04
MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15374/11
A fundamental distinction must be made between a statement that someone is merely suspected of having committed a crime and a clear declaration - in the absence of a final conviction - that an individual has committed the crime in question (see, among others, Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 48, ECHR 2006-X; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 71, 6 February 2007; and Wojciechowski v. Poland, no. 5422/04, § 54, 9 December 2008). - EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09
ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15374/11
The Court has acknowledged in its case-law the existence of two aspects as regards the protection afforded by the presumption of innocence: a procedural aspect relating to the conduct of the criminal trial, and a second aspect which aims to ensure respect for the applicant's established innocence in the context of subsequent proceedings where there is a link with the criminal proceedings which have ended with a result other than a conviction (see, generally, Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2013). - EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45028/07
KEMAL COSKUN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15374/11
In that respect the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only in the context of the criminal trial, but also in separate civil, disciplinary or other proceedings that are conducted simultaneously with the criminal proceedings (see Kemal Coskun v. Turkey, no. 45028/07, § 41, 28 March 2017).
- EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 6924/02
JAKUMAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15374/11
The Court reiterates in that respect that even exoneration from criminal responsibility does not, as such, preclude the establishment of civil or other forms of liability arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof (see, for example, Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II; Jakumas v. Lithuania, no. 6924/02, § 57, 18 July 2006; Çelik (Bozkurt) v. Turkey, no. 34388/05, § 30, 12 April 2011; and Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 56, 11 February 2014). - EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 34388/05
CELIK (BOZKURT) v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15374/11
The Court reiterates in that respect that even exoneration from criminal responsibility does not, as such, preclude the establishment of civil or other forms of liability arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof (see, for example, Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II; Jakumas v. Lithuania, no. 6924/02, § 57, 18 July 2006; Çelik (Bozkurt) v. Turkey, no. 34388/05, § 30, 12 April 2011; and Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 56, 11 February 2014). - EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10
VELLA v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15374/11
The Court reiterates in that respect that even exoneration from criminal responsibility does not, as such, preclude the establishment of civil or other forms of liability arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof (see, for example, Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II; Jakumas v. Lithuania, no. 6924/02, § 57, 18 July 2006; Çelik (Bozkurt) v. Turkey, no. 34388/05, § 30, 12 April 2011; and Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 56, 11 February 2014).
- BAG, 31.01.2019 - 2 AZR 426/18
Ordentliche Verdachtskündigung - Sachvortragsverwertungsverbot
Hingegen können Rechtsfolgen, die - wie die Kündigung eines Arbeitsverhältnisses - keinen Strafcharakter besitzen, in gerichtlichen Entscheidungen an einen Verdacht geknüpft werden (BVerfG 29. Mai 1990 - 2 BvR 254/88, 2 BvR 1343/88 - zu C I 4 der Gründe, BVerfGE 82, 106; BAG 12. Februar 2015 - 6 AZR 845/13 - Rn. 30, BAGE 151, 1; EGMR 23. Januar 2018 - 15374/11 - [Güç/Türkei] Rn. 38) .Doch hindern ein anhängiges Strafverfahren und selbst ein rechtskräftiger Freispruch jedenfalls dann nicht die Annahme, eine Kündigung des Arbeitsverhältnisses sei wirksam, wenn dem eine eigene richterliche Würdigung auf der Grundlage eines geringeren Beweismaßes (§ 286 ZPO gegenüber § 261 StPO) zugrunde liegt und sich das Arbeitsgericht einer strafrechtlichen Bewertung enthält (vgl. EGMR 23. Januar 2018 - 15374/11 - [Güç/Türkei] Rn. 38 ff.; 18. Oktober 2016 - 21107/07 - [Alka s i/Türkei] Rn. 30 f.; ErfK/Niemann 19. Aufl. BGB § 626 Rn. 133a, 176) .
- EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 58073/17
U.Y. c. TÜRKIYE
En effet, à condition de ne pas affirmer la responsabilité pénale des requérants, les organes disciplinaires ont le pouvoir et la capacité d'établir de manière indépendante les faits des causes portées devant eux (Vanjak c. Croatie, no 29889/04, §§ 69-72, 14 janvier 2010, ? ikic, c. Croatie, no 9143/08, §§ 54-56, 15 juillet 2010, Çelik (Bozkurt), précité, § 32, Kemal Co?Ÿkun, précité, § 53, Güç c. Turquie, no 15374/11, § 39, 23 janvier 2018, Urat, précité, § 53, et les références qui y sont faites, et Istrate, précité, §§ 59 et 60). - EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 44546/13
ISTRATE c. ROUMANIE
Il estime que la situation de l'intéressé était similaire à celle du requérant dans l'affaire de Güç c. Turquie (no 15374/11, §§ 41-43, 23 janvier 2018) et opposée à celle des requérants dans les affaires Teodor c. Roumanie (no 46878/06, §§ 36-46, 4 juin 2013) et Çelik (Bozkurt) c. Turquie (no 34388/05, 12 avril 2011). - EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 54892/16
BADULLAH v. THE NETHERLANDS
Moreover, whether or not a public official's remarks breach the principle of the presumption of innocence must be examined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the offending remarks were made (see Güç v. Turkey, no. 15374/11, § 38 with further references, 23 January 2018). - EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 59133/16
NEVÉ v. THE NETHERLANDS
Moreover, whether or not a public official's remarks breach the principle of the presumption of innocence must be examined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the offending remarks were made (see Güç v. Turkey, no. 15374/11, § 38 with further references, 23 January 2018).