Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 13 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZOLLMANN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (29)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  As regards the applicants' allegations that they have been discriminated against in the enjoyment of their right to respect for private life, the Court recalls that for the purposes of Article 14 a difference in treatment between persons in analogous or relevantly similar positions is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, that is if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (for example, Pretty v. United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III, § 88).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 40877/98

  CORDOVA c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  This indicates that the immunity is kept within well-defined limits, apt to achieve the purposes for which it is required without erring into unnecessarily blanket protection (see Cordova v. Italy (no. 1) no. 40877/98, ECHR 2003-..., §§ 62-63).
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Y c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  Article 6 § 2 may also be applicable where the criminal proceedings proper have terminated in an acquittal and other courts issue decisions voicing the continued existence of suspicion regarding the accused's innocence or otherwise casting doubt on the correctness of the acquittal (see, for example, Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, § 30; Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, ECHR 2003-..., § 48, and O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, ECHR 2003-..., § 40 (concerning the acquitted accused's application for costs and compensation for pecuniary damage respectively); Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, ECHR 2003-..., § 46 (concerning proceedings brought by the alleged victim of the crime for compensation from the acquitted accused).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  It prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person charged with the criminal offence is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, where the Assize Court hearing the criminal case found the prosecution time-barred but continued nonetheless to decide whether, if it had continued, the applicant would probably have been found guilty for the purposes of costs orders).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  The applicants submitted that Article 6 § 2 applied even where no criminal proceedings were in existence or possible in the United Kingdom, citing Allenet de Ribemont v. France (judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308) as indicating that the provision applied even outside criminal proceedings to protect the alleged suspect from hostile public opinion and prevent substitution of non-judicial statements for penal decisions.
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  Article 6 § 2 may also be applicable where the criminal proceedings proper have terminated in an acquittal and other courts issue decisions voicing the continued existence of suspicion regarding the accused's innocence or otherwise casting doubt on the correctness of the acquittal (see, for example, Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, § 30; Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, ECHR 2003-..., § 48, and O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, ECHR 2003-..., § 40 (concerning the acquitted accused's application for costs and compensation for pecuniary damage respectively); Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, ECHR 2003-..., § 46 (concerning proceedings brought by the alleged victim of the crime for compensation from the acquitted accused).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95

  CAMP ET BOURIMI c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, ECHR 2000-X, § 37).

• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 1828/06

  G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  To a certain extent, the protection afforded under Article 6 § 2 in this connection may overlap with the protection afforded by Article 8 (see, for example, Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus, nos.
• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  To a certain extent, the protection afforded under Article 6 § 2 in this respect may overlap with the protection afforded by Article 8 (see, for example, Zollman v. The United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; and Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus, nos.
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  These principles have been confirmed in a number of cases concerning freedom of expression of members of national or regional parliaments (see, among other authorities, Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 36, ECHR 2001-II; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 65, 16 July 2009, and Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, § 50, ECHR 2011) as well as in a series of cases concerning restrictions on the right of access to a court stemming from the operation of parliamentary immunity (see A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, § 79, ECHR 2002-X; Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98, § 59, ECHR 2003-I; Cordova v. Italy (no. 2), no. 45649/99, § 60, ECHR 2003-I (extracts); Zollmann v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; De Jorio v. Italy, no. 73936/01, § 52, 3 June 2004; Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli v. Italy, no. 10180/04, § 61, 20 April 2006; and C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, no. 46967/07, § 71, 24 February 2009).

 
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 2947/06

  ISMOILOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Lorsque aucune procédure pénale n'est en cours ou n'a été ouverte, les propos imputant à autrui la responsabilité d'une infraction ou d'une autre conduite répréhensible relèvent plutôt de la protection contre la diffamation ainsi que du droit de saisir les tribunaux d'une contestation portant sur des droits de caractère civil et soulèvent des problèmes potentiels sous l'angle des articles 8 et 6 de la Convention (Zollmann c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62902/00, CEDH 2003-XII).

  Lorsque aucune procédure pénale n'est en cours ou n'a été ouverte, les propos imputant à autrui la responsabilité d'une infraction ou d'une autre conduite répréhensible relèvent plutôt de la protection contre la diffamation ainsi que du droit de saisir les tribunaux d'une contestation portant sur des droits de caractère civil et soulèvent des problèmes potentiels sous l'angle des articles 8 et 6 de la Convention » (voir Zollmann c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62902/00, CEDH 2003-XII).

• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  La Cour rappelle ensuite qu'une procédure en diffamation est la voie de recours privilégiée pour contester tout propos imputant à autrui la responsabilité d'une infraction lorsqu'aucune procédure pénale n'est en cours ou n'a été ouverte (voir Zollmann c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62902/00, CEDH 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17

  Selahattin Demirtas

  These principles have been confirmed in a number of cases concerning the freedom of expression of members of national or regional parliaments (see, among other authorities, Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 137, 17 May 2016; Jerusalem v. Austria, no. 26958/95, § 36, ECHR 2001-II; Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, § 65, 16 July 2009; and Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, no. 2034/07, § 50, ECHR 2011), as well as in a series of cases concerning restrictions on the right of access to court stemming from the operation of parliamentary immunity (see A. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 79; Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98, § 59, ECHR 2003-I; Cordova v. Italy (no. 2), no. 45649/99, § 60, ECHR 2003-I; Zollmann v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; De Jorio v. Italy, no. 73936/01, § 52, 3 June 2004; Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli v. Italy, no. 10180/04, § 61, 20 April 2006; and C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, no. 46967/07, § 71, 24 February 2009).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 73911/16

  LARRAÑAGA ARANDO AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

  In the absence of a "criminal charge", where no such criminal proceedings are, or have been in existence, Article 6 § 2 has been found not to be applicable (see Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; Blake v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 68890/01, §§ 123-24, 25 October 2005; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015; and Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, no. 10613/16, § 178, 11 January 2018).

  To a certain extent, the protection afforded under Article 6 § 2 in this respect may overlap with the protection afforded by Article 8 (see, for example, Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII, and Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus, nos.

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 75529/16

  MARTÍNEZ AGIRRE AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

  In the absence of a "criminal charge", where no such criminal proceedings are, or have been in existence, Article 6 § 2 has been found not to be applicable (see Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII; Blake v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 68890/01, §§ 123-24, 25 October 2005; Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, 12 May 2015; and Sharxhi and Others v. Albania, no. 10613/16, § 178, 11 January 2018).

  To a certain extent, the protection afforded under Article 6 § 2 in this respect may overlap with the protection afforded by Article 8 (see, for example, Zollman v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII, and Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus, nos.

• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 3453/12

  KAPETANIOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  Dans une certaine mesure, la protection offerte par l'article 6 § 2 à cet égard peut recouvrir celle qu'apporte l'article 8 (voir, par exemple, Zollmann c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62902/00, CEDH 2003-XII, et Taliadorou et Stylianou c. Chypre, nos 39627/05 et 39631/05, §§ 27 et 56-59, 16 octobre 2008).
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 27785/10

  MELO TADEU c. PORTUGAL

  Dans une certaine mesure, la protection offerte par l'article 6 § 2 à cet égard peut recouvrir celle qu'apporte l'article 8 (voir, par exemple, Zollmann c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 62902/00, CEDH 2003-XII, et Taliadorou et Stylianou c. Chypre, nos 39627/05 et 39631/05, §§ 27 et 56-59, 16 octobre 2008).
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39627/05

  TALIADOROU AND STYLIANOU v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 10613/16

  SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  LENEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18

  RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 39058/05

  KYRIAKIDES v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61949/08

  SEFERI YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 20148/09

  RIGOLIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 44546/13

  ISTRATE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 23445/18

  BAYDEMIR c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 58939/00

  KOUZMIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 31012/19

  BAKOYANNI v. GREECE
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO (No. 2)
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 38197/16

  GÜLEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 8284/07

  BATIASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  HAJI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 73080/10

  DOLGOPOLOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA