Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CARAIAN v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CARAIAN v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34456/07
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 34456/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34456/07

  It will be violated if a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects the opinion that he is guilty, unless he has been proved so according to law, in particular where he has had the opportunity to exercise his rights to mount a defence (see Müller v. Germany, no. 54963/08, § 46, 27 March 2014; Capetti and Maimut v. Romania (dec.), no. 13043/05 and 23408/08, §§ 77 and 78, 15 May 2012 and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).

  All three cases, as was clearly observed in Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, § 121, ECHR 2013) concerned prior criminal proceedings which had ended in discontinuance, rather than acquittal.

• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34456/07

  In the subsequent case of Sekanina v. Austria (25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), the Court drew a distinction between cases where the criminal proceedings had been discontinued and those where a final acquittal judgment had been handed down, clarifying that the voicing of suspicions regarding an accused's innocence was conceivable as long as the conclusion of criminal proceedings had not resulted in a decision on the merits of the accusation, but that it was no longer admissible to rely on such suspicions once an acquittal had become final.
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34456/07

  In the early case of Minelli v. Switzerland (25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), which concerned an order requiring the applicant to pay prosecution costs following discontinuance of criminal proceedings, the Court set out the applicable principle as follows:.

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 13043/05

  CAPETTI AND MAIMUT v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34456/07

  It will be violated if a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects the opinion that he is guilty, unless he has been proved so according to law, in particular where he has had the opportunity to exercise his rights to mount a defence (see Müller v. Germany, no. 54963/08, § 46, 27 March 2014; Capetti and Maimut v. Romania (dec.), no. 13043/05 and 23408/08, §§ 77 and 78, 15 May 2012 and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 72758/01

  Unschuldsvermutung (Entschädigungsansprüche; konkludente Schuldfeststellung bei …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34456/07

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards that person as guilty (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X; A.L. v. Germany, no. 72758/01, § 31, 28 April 2005; and Grabtchouk v. Ukraine, no. 8599/02, § 42, 21 September 2006).
• EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 54963/08

  Individualbeschwerde gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland wegen Verletzung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34456/07

  It will be violated if a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects the opinion that he is guilty, unless he has been proved so according to law, in particular where he has had the opportunity to exercise his rights to mount a defence (see Müller v. Germany, no. 54963/08, § 46, 27 March 2014; Capetti and Maimut v. Romania (dec.), no. 13043/05 and 23408/08, §§ 77 and 78, 15 May 2012 and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 34456/07

  To this end, the Court will carefully examine the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).