Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DEMICOLI v. MALTA
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection rejected (six month period) Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 6-2 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DEMICOLI c. MALTE
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (délai de six mois) Violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-2 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais ... - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 15.03.1989 - 13057/87
- EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 1992, 2619
Wird zitiert von ... (63) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 22.05.1990 - 11034/84
WEBER c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
The Court has already had to determine similar issues in other cases (see the Weber judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, p. 17, para. 30, and the other judgments referred to therein).A factor of greater importance is "the very nature of the offence" in question (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Campbell and Fell judgment, Series A no. 80, p. 36, para. 71, and the above-mentioned Weber judgment, Series A no. 177, p. 18, para. 32).
From this point of view, therefore, the particular breach of privilege in question is akin to a criminal offence under the Press Act 1974 (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Weber judgment, Series A no. 177, p. 18 para. 33 in fine).
- EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
82) and have been consistently applied in the Court's subsequent case-law (see, apart from the judgments referred to above, the Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, and the Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80).A factor of greater importance is "the very nature of the offence" in question (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Campbell and Fell judgment, Series A no. 80, p. 36, para. 71, and the above-mentioned Weber judgment, Series A no. 177, p. 18, para. 32).
- EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
In this context even appearances may be of a certain importance, particularly as far as criminal proceedings are concerned (see, amongst other authorities, the Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, paras. 46-48).Already for this reason, the impartiality of the adjudicating body in these proceedings would appear to be open to doubt and the applicant's fears in this connection were justified (see the above-mentioned Hauschildt judgment, Series A no. 154, p. 23, para. 52).
- EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
The Court has consistently held that reimbursement may be ordered in respect of costs and expenses that (a) were actually and necessarily incurred by the injured party in order to seek, through the domestic legal system, prevention or rectification of a violation, to have the same established by the Commission and later by the Court and to obtain redress therefor, and (b) are reasonable as to quantum (see, among other authorities, the Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 33, para. 101). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82
BOZANO v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
The question remains open and the Court does not propose to decide it for the time being (see, mutatis mutandis, the Bozano judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 22, para. 50 in fine). - EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83
BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
1 (art. 6-1) itself" (see the Belilos judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 29, para. 64). - EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79
Öztürk ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
82) and have been consistently applied in the Court's subsequent case-law (see, apart from the judgments referred to above, the Öztürk judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, and the Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80). - EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65
RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
Accordingly it fulfilled all the requirements of a tribunal set out in the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971 (Series A no. 13, p. 39, para. 95).
- EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 29381/09
Homosexualität in Griechenland
Parti communiste unifié de Turquie et autres c. Turquie, 30 janvier 1998, §§ 29-30, Recueil 1998-I et, encore plus explicitement, Dumitru Popescu (no 2), précité, § 103. Non seulement la pratique de la Cour mais aussi l'acceptation des Etats parties confirment cette interprétation (voir les amendements constitutionnels adoptés après l'arrêt du 27 août 1991 dans l'affaire Demicoli c. Malte, série A no 210, suivi de la résolution DH (95) 211 du 11 septembre 1995 ; après l'arrêt adopté le 29 octobre 992 dans l'affaire Open Door et Dublin Well Woman c. Irlande, série A no 246-A, suivi de la résolution DH (96) 386 du 26 juin 1996 ; et après l'arrêt adopté le 23 octobre 1995 dans l'affaire Palaoro c. Autriche, série A no 329-B, suivi de la résolution DH (96) 150 du 15 mai 1996). - EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90
WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
1 (art. 6-1), une portée autonome (voir notamment, pour ce qui est des "droits de caractère civil", l'arrêt X c. France du 31 mars 1992, série A no 234-C, p. 98, par. 28, et, pour ce qui est des "accusations en matière pénale", l'arrêt Demicoli c. Malte du 27 août 1991, série A no 210, pp. 15-16, par. 31). - EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
(ii) The notion of "penalty" 96. The notion of "penalty" in Article 7 § 1 of the Convention, like those of "civil rights and obligations" and "criminal charge" in Article 6 § 1, has an autonomous meaning (see in particular, regarding "civil rights", X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 28, Series A no. 234-C, and, on the subject of "criminal charges", Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, § 31, Series A no. 210).
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
In order to determine whether an offence qualifies as "criminal" for the purposes of the Convention, it is first necessary to ascertain whether or not the provision (art. 6-1) defining the offence belongs, in the legal system of the respondent State, to criminal law; next the "very nature of the offence" and the degree of severity of the penalty risked must be considered (see, among other authorities, the Öztürk v. Germany judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, p. 18, para. 50, and the Demicoli v. Malta judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, pp. 15-17, paras. 31-34). - EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
The Court reiterates that the applicability of Article 6 falls to be assessed on the basis of the three criteria outlined in the Engel judgment, namely the legal classification of the offence under national law; the nature of the offence; and the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risked incurring (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 82-83, Series A no. 22; Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 50, Series A no. 73; Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, §§ 31-34, Series A no. 210; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 95-98, ECHR 2006-III; Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. - EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 14967/89
GUERRA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
It reiterates that it is for the State to choose the means to be used in its domestic legal system in order to comply with the provisions of the Convention or to redress the situation that has given rise to the violation of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, the following judgments: Zanghì v. Italy of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 48, § 26, Demicoli v. Malta of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 19, § 45, and Yaci and Sargin v. Turkey of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 24, § 81). - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86
BORGERS v. BELGIUM
32; Demicoli c. Malte du 27 août 1991, série A no 210, p. 18, par. - EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 39665/98
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Begriff der strafrechtlichen Anklage; …
The nature and severity of the penalty which were "liable to be imposed" on the applicants (the Engel and Others judgment, § 82) is determined by reference to the maximum potential penalty for which the relevant law provides (the above-cited Campbell and Fell judgment, at § 72; Weber v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 May 1990, Series A no. 177, § 34; Demicoli v. Malta, judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, § 34; Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment cited above, § 56; and the above-cited Garyfallou AEBE v. Greece judgment, §§ 33 and 34). - EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95
ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM
La qualification en droit interne n'est cependant pas déterminante aux fins de la Convention, eu égard au sens autonome et matériel qu'il échet d'attribuer aux termes « accusation en matière pénale'(voir par exemple les arrêts Wemhoff c. Allemagne du 27 juin 1968, série A n° 7, pp. 26-27, § 19, et Demicoli c. Malte du 27 août 1991, série A n° 210, pp. 15-16, § 31).Il en résulte que certaines sanctions qui n'étaient pas qualifiées de peines en droit interne ont pu être considérées comme relevant de la « matière pénale'au sens de l'article 6 de la Convention (arrêt Lutz c. Allemagne du 25 août 1987, série A n° 123 ; arrêt Weber c. Suisse du 22 mai 1990, série A n° 177 ; arrêt Demicoli c. Malte du 27 août 1991, série A n° 210).
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96
SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)
With regard to costs and expenses, the Court awards Mr Incal, on an equitable basis and according to the criteria laid down by its case-law (see, among other authorities, the Demicoli v. Malta judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 20, § 49), the overall sum of FRF 15, 000.". - EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 21613/07
KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 22367/04
B. S.gegen Deutschland
- EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 42461/13
KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00
MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88
RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 22860/02
WOS c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 09.06.1998 - 22678/93
INCAL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.10.1997 - 24194/94
PIERRE-BLOCH v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 29279/95
SAHINER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 19844/08
BECKER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 22.02.1996 - 18892/91
PUTZ c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 17214/05
Savino ./. Italien / Persichetti ./. Italien
- EKMR, 05.04.1994 - 21283/93
TYLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 44357/13
SZÉL ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 66484/09
MARIUSZ LEWANDOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 26986/03
GALSTYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 37575/04
BOULOIS v. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 41285/02
SZAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 20870/04
BELKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.02.2010 - 29334/06
KOSTKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 31438/06
KADLUCZKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.05.1998 - 27053/95
VASILESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 36137/04
KROSTA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15523/89
SCHMAUTZER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 19961/17
C.Y. c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99
MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 39665/98
EZEH AND CONNORS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97
KINGSLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15527/89
UMLAUFT c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16718/90
PALAORO v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 43578/98
I.D. v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 42010/06
DELI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 25555/10
IGOR PASCARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 25168/05
CZEKIEN v. POLAND
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 30451/96
SELCUK YILDIRIM v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 31892/96
YALGIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 33370/96
ARAP YALGIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 31881/96
TAMKOÇ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 31893/96
GUNES v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16713/90
PRAMSTALLER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 16841/90
PFARRMEIER c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 32984/96
ALFATLI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (as regards the applicant Mahmut Memduh Uyan)
- EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 23413/94
L.C.B. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EKMR, 18.10.1994 - 16566/90
W.M. v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 40060/13
AHACHAK AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 65022/01
ZAICEVS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 29360/95
GULSEN AND HALIL YASIN KETENOGLU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 33368/96
YAKIS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 45282/99
BLOKKER v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EKMR, 12.01.1993 - 19538/92
GOODMAN INTERNATIONAL AND GOODMAN v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 70219/17
AUMATELL I ARNAU c. ESPAGNE
- EKMR, 29.06.1992 - 17072/90
P. c. AUTRICHE