Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SENOTRUSOVY v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SENOTRUSOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27473/11

  N.A. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 6207/16

  Read in context of the judgment as a whole, and given the specific context of the proceedings, the use of the expressions chosen by the appellate court cannot reasonably be read as an affirmation imputing criminal liability on the part of V. (see Fleischner, cited above, § 64; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 48, 18 December 2014; and, in so far as relevant, Ilias Papageorgiou v. Greece, no. 44101/13, § 54, 10 December 2020).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  VASILKOSKI AND OTHERS v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 6207/16

  Assuming that he complied with the exhaustion requirements (compare Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, §§ 42-46, 28 October 2010), and that the application is not incompatible ratione personae, it is inadmissible as follows.
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 6207/16

  It is a fundamental rule of criminal law that criminal liability does not survive the person who has committed the criminal act and that this rule is a guarantee for the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 32631/09 and 53799/12, § 284, 27 August 2019).

 
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 44101/13

  ILIAS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 6207/16

  Read in context of the judgment as a whole, and given the specific context of the proceedings, the use of the expressions chosen by the appellate court cannot reasonably be read as an affirmation imputing criminal liability on the part of V. (see Fleischner, cited above, § 64; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 48, 18 December 2014; and, in so far as relevant, Ilias Papageorgiou v. Greece, no. 44101/13, § 54, 10 December 2020).
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 61985/12

  FLEISCHNER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 6207/16

  In examining whether the new appeal proceedings of 19 May 2016 constituted sufficient redress in respect of the first applicant's grievances (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 67, 70 and 83, 2 November 2010), the Court must take note of the nature and the context of the proceedings as a whole and their special features (see Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 65, 3 October 2019, and Pasquini v. San Marino (no. 2), no. 23349/17, § 51, 20 October 2020).
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 6207/16

  In examining whether the new appeal proceedings of 19 May 2016 constituted sufficient redress in respect of the first applicant's grievances (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 67, 70 and 83, 2 November 2010), the Court must take note of the nature and the context of the proceedings as a whole and their special features (see Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 65, 3 October 2019, and Pasquini v. San Marino (no. 2), no. 23349/17, § 51, 20 October 2020).