Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CONSTANTINESCU v. ROMANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'Art. 10 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- IRIS Merlin (Kurzinformation)
Jüngste Urteile zur Meinungsfreiheit. Rechtssachen Erdogdu gegen die Türkei und Constantinescu gegen Rumänien
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 28871/95
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
Wird zitiert von ... (98) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87
FEJDE c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
Devant une cour d'appel jouissant de la plénitude de juridiction, l'article 6 ne garantit pas nécessairement le droit à une audience publique ni, si une telle audience a lieu, celui d'assister en personne aux débats (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Fejde c. Suède du 29 octobre 1991, série A no 212-C, pp. 69-70, § 33). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
La Cour ne saurait certes spéculer sur ce qu'eût été l'issue du procès dans le cas contraire, mais n'estime pas déraisonnable de penser que l'intéressé a subi une perte de chance réelle dans ledit procès (Pélissier et Sassi c. France [GC], no 25444/94, § 80, CEDH 1999-II). - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9815/82
LINGENS v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
Il y a donc lieu d'examiner si cette ingérence était «prévue par la loi», visait un but légitime en vertu de ce paragraphe et était «nécessaire dans une société démocratique» (arrêt Lingens c. Autriche du 8 juillet 1986, série A no 103, pp. 24-25, §§ 34-37). - EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
La Cour rappelle qu"« une décision ou une mesure favorable au requérant ne suffit en principe à lui retirer la qualité de «victime» que si les autorités nationales ont reconnu, explicitement ou en substance, puis réparé la violation de la Convention » (Dalban c. Roumanie [GC], no 28114/95, § 44, CEDH 1999-VI).
- EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06
PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
The Government took the view, relying on Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28871/95, §§ 72-75, ECHR 2000-VIII), that the existence of damage to the reputation of others, in the exercise by the applicants of their freedom of expression, could not be regarded as justified by their union activity. - EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
KASHLEV v. ESTONIA
In that respect the present case differs from a number of cases the Court has dealt with where the defendant in criminal proceedings had not been heard by an appellate jurisdiction since no oral hearing had been held at all (see Igual Coll v. Spain, no. 37496/04, § 7, 10 March 2009; Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, § 10, 21 September 2010; and García Hernández v. Spain, no. 15256/07, § 8, 16 November 2010), had not been heard in person regardless of the hearing having taken place (see Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, § 10, 22 November 2011) or had been able to address the court but had not been heard during the trial (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Popa and Tanasescu v. Romania, no. 19946/04, §§ 28 and 50, 10 April 2012).However, where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by an accused who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see, among many others, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 32, Series A no. 134; Constantinescu v. Romania no. 28871/95, § 55; Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 22, 29 September 2009; Sinichkin v. Russia, no. 20508/03, § 32, 8 April 2010; Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, §§ 36 and 38, 22 November 2011; Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 32, 4 June 2013; Vaduva v. Romania no. 27781/06 § 37, 25 February 2014; and Gómez Olmeda v. Spain, no. 61112/12, § 35, 29 March 2016).
- EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98
TAMMER v. ESTONIA
Elle estime que le requérant aurait pu formuler des critiques à l'égard des actes de Mme Laanaru sans recourir à ces expressions injurieuses (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, § 74, CEDH 2000-VIII).
- EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98
GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
The Court accordingly considers that the fact that no public hearing was held in the proceedings in the Constitutional Court was sufficiently compensated by the public hearings held at the decisive stage of the proceedings, when the merits of the applicants" restitution claims were determined (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 53, ECHR 2000-VI). - EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14
SELMANI AND OTHERS v.
Even assuming that that declaration can be seen as an acknowledgment, whether explicit or in substance, by a State authority, of an alleged breach of Article 10 of the Convention, the Court considers that it does not provide any redress as required by its case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 56396/12
PEREIRA CRUZ ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL
Cela dit, dans un certain nombre d'affaires, la Cour a considéré que, lorsqu'une instance d'appel est amenée à connaître d'une affaire en fait et en droit et à étudier dans son ensemble la question de la culpabilité ou de l'innocence, elle ne peut, pour des motifs d'équité de la procédure, décider de ces questions sans appréciation directe des témoignages présentés en personne soit par l'accusé qui soutient qu'il n'a pas commis l'acte tenu pour une infraction pénale (voir, parmi d'autres exemples, Ekbatani c. Suède, 26 mai 1988, § 32, série A no 134, Constantinescu c. Roumanie, no 28871/95, § 55, CEDH 2000-VIII, Dondarini c. Saint-Marin, no 50545/99, § 27, 6 juillet 2004, 1gual Coll c. Espagne, no 37496/04, § 27, 10 mars 2009, et Zahirovic c. Croatie, no 58590/11, § 63, 25 avril 2013) soit, si elle renverse par une condamnation un verdict d'acquittement prononcé par une instance inférieure, par les témoins ayant déposé pendant la procédure (Gaitanaru c. Roumanie, no 26082/05, § 35, 26 juin 2012, et Hogea, précité, § 54). - EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 6267/02
ROSCA v. MOLDOVA
The Government further cited the cases of Vasilescu v. Romania, (judgment of 22 May 1998, Reports 1998-III) and Constantinescu v. Romania, (no. 28871/95, ECHR 2000-VIII), where the applicants were awarded 30, 000 French francs (FRF) and FRF 15, 000 respectively for non-pecuniary damage. - EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 4063/04
MARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
Notwithstanding the particular role played by the applicant in his capacity as union representative, as well as that his statements, which related to official conduct of a public employee, were as such a matter of public concern, the Court finds that he had a duty to react within limits fixed, inter alia, in the interest of "protecting the reputation or rights of others", including the presumption of innocence (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 22088/04
BRAGADIREANU v. ROMANIA
It is true that unlike in the cases of Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28871/95, § 19, ECHR 2000-VIII) and Ilisescu and Chiforec (cited above, § 15) where the courts refused to hear evidence from the applicants and/or their lawyers although they were present at the hearings, in the instant case neither the applicant nor his chosen counsels (with few exceptions) appeared in court. - EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 2059/16
HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that the Plenum's judgment to quash the conviction and acquit the applicants was tantamount to a recognition that their conviction had been in breach of their rights under Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention or in breach of the State's obligation under Article 18 of the Convention (compare Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 42, ECHR 2000-VIII; Pisano, cited above, § 37; Kaymaz v. Turkey, no. 6247/03, § 18, 26 June 2007; and Kerimoglu, cited above, § 50). - EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 23782/06
CONSTANTIN AND STOIAN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 66580/12
BIVOLARU c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03
SINICHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00
MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 63446/13
LOREFICE c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50224/07
MISCHIE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 34116/04
STANCA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 26082/05
GAITANARU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 29372/02
KARMAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 13600/02
BAYBASIN v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
LAZARIU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 31912/04
HOGEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 19452/02
ANDREESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 17590/02
PAPAIANOPOL c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 78108/14
PAIXÃO MOREIRA SÁ FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 70792/10
VALDHUTER c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 10890/04
HANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 8999/07
DAN v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 7078/02
V.D. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 58729/00
ABEBERRY c. FRANCE
- EGMR - 25217/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 75037/14
TONDO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 55116/12
OVIDIU CRISTIAN STOICA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 22036/10
CHIPER c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 27018/06
TORJA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21528/09
MARIUS DRAGOMIR c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 27781/06
VADUVA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 32563/04
ILEANA CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 25867/03
IAMANDI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 26732/03
ANTICA ET SOCIÉTÉ " R " c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 41250/02
MIRCEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 55565/00
BARTIK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.09.2005 - 18624/03
IVANCIUC c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR - 26732/03
[FRE]
- EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 51107/16
TIRIAC v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 20903/15
MAESTRI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 15931/15
DI MARTINO ET MOLINARI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 3696/16
MORALES RODRÍGUEZ ET VÁZQUEZ MORENO c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07
CONIAC v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 16903/12
MOINESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 25217/06
MORAR c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 2228/04
VLAD BELLAMY v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04
VALENTINO ACATRINEI v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 32072/06
CATANA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 19946/04
POPA AND TANASESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 6246/04
RUSU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 17309/02
GROZESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 53897/00
DANILA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 26606/04
FALTER ZEITSCHRIFTEN GMBH v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 25585/02
EMEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 53897/00
DANILA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 25598/18
STOICU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 29235/14
DUMITRASCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 72145/14
STRESINA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 9812/13
RADULESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 36066/12
CASANDRA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 22941/13
PATULEANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 68964/13
MUJEA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 41468/10
GUTAU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 61697/11
SIMSEK c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 36470/08
CIPLEU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 25497/04
FESIUC v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 21949/04
URSU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 17520/04
FLUERAS c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28906/09
GÂNGA ET LE SYNDICAT INDEPENDANT DES JURISTES DE ROUMANIE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 34828/02
CARLAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 75300/01
IEREMEIOV v. ROMANIA (No. 1)
- EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 4637/02
IEREMEIOV v. ROMANIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 34175/05
D.J. ET A.-K.R. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 8237/03
PORUBOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 26958/05
SANDOR LAJOS KISS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 30699/02
MARIN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 14139/03
BOLAT v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 72683/01
CHEMODUROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 47092/99
EKIMDJIEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 28841/09
LES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 30122/03
SIMEONOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 37376/05
TALABER v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 19586/02
MANOLE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 22.11.2007 - 22567/03
DESJARDIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 31.07.2007 - 72683/01
CHEMODUROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 14683/03
SYLLA v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 36676/06
GHINCEA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 9781/13
LIVIU CONSTANTIN CONTAC ET CONSTANTIN CONTAC c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 61112/12
GÓMEZ OLMEDA v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 24082/03
ZARAFIM v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 57321/00
BREIEROVA and OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 30332/02
TÁNCZOS v. HUNGARY