Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
JANUSKEVICIENE v. LITHUANIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Effective domestic remedy;No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
JANUSKEVICIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 73693/01
BABJAK and OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
In several cases it found remedies under civil law, offering the possibility of obtaining monetary compensation together with various other procedures for acknowledgment of or putting an end to the infringement of the presumption of innocence, to be effective within the meaning of the Convention (see Babjak and Others v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 73693/01, 30 March 2004; Marchiani v. France (dec.), no. 30392/03, 27 May 2008; and Ringwald v. Croatia (dec.) [Committee], nos.The majority also refers to Babjak and Others v. Slovakia (dec., no. 73693/01, 30 March 2004), Marchiani v. France (dec., no. 30392/03, 27 May 2008); and Ringwald v. Croatia ([Committee], dec., nos. 14590/15 and 25405/15, §§ 54-56, 22 January 2019), pointing out that in these cases the Court found civil-law remedies, offering the possibility of obtaining monetary compensation together with various other procedures for acknowledgment of or putting an end to the infringement of the presumption of innocence, to be effective within the meaning of the Convention (paragraph 59).
- EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 14590/15
RINGWALD v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
14590/15 and 25405/15, §§ 54-56, 22 January 2019).The majority also refers to Babjak and Others v. Slovakia (dec., no. 73693/01, 30 March 2004), Marchiani v. France (dec., no. 30392/03, 27 May 2008); and Ringwald v. Croatia ([Committee], dec., nos. 14590/15 and 25405/15, §§ 54-56, 22 January 2019), pointing out that in these cases the Court found civil-law remedies, offering the possibility of obtaining monetary compensation together with various other procedures for acknowledgment of or putting an end to the infringement of the presumption of innocence, to be effective within the meaning of the Convention (paragraph 59).
- EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10
GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
The Court has previously accepted that a remedy under civil law can, in principle, be considered effective against alleged violations of the presumption of innocence (see Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, § 178, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).This was so in a series of cases against Bulgaria, many of which had resulted from the same factual situation and in which the applicants complained about public statements by State officials, declaring the applicants guilty while the criminal proceedings against them were pending (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 177-79, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Toni Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 37124/10, § 108, 27 January 2015; Slavov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58500/10, §§ 105-06, 10 November 2015; Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10, § 63, 31 March 2016; Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 55388/10, § 97, 31 March 2016; Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10, § 40, 31 March 2016; and Lolov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 6123/11, §§ 45-51, 21 February 2019).
- EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 58500/10
SLAVOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
This was so in a series of cases against Bulgaria, many of which had resulted from the same factual situation and in which the applicants complained about public statements by State officials, declaring the applicants guilty while the criminal proceedings against them were pending (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 177-79, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Toni Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 37124/10, § 108, 27 January 2015; Slavov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58500/10, §§ 105-06, 10 November 2015; Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10, § 63, 31 March 2016; Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 55388/10, § 97, 31 March 2016; Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10, § 40, 31 March 2016; and Lolov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 6123/11, §§ 45-51, 21 February 2019). - EGMR, 21.02.2019 - 6123/11
LOLOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
This was so in a series of cases against Bulgaria, many of which had resulted from the same factual situation and in which the applicants complained about public statements by State officials, declaring the applicants guilty while the criminal proceedings against them were pending (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 177-79, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Toni Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 37124/10, § 108, 27 January 2015; Slavov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58500/10, §§ 105-06, 10 November 2015; Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10, § 63, 31 March 2016; Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 55388/10, § 97, 31 March 2016; Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10, § 40, 31 March 2016; and Lolov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 6123/11, §§ 45-51, 21 February 2019). - EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55388/10
STOYANOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
This was so in a series of cases against Bulgaria, many of which had resulted from the same factual situation and in which the applicants complained about public statements by State officials, declaring the applicants guilty while the criminal proceedings against them were pending (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 177-79, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Toni Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 37124/10, § 108, 27 January 2015; Slavov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58500/10, §§ 105-06, 10 November 2015; Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10, § 63, 31 March 2016; Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 55388/10, § 97, 31 March 2016; Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10, § 40, 31 March 2016; and Lolov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 6123/11, §§ 45-51, 21 February 2019). - EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 45773/10
PETROV ET IVANOVA c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
This was so in a series of cases against Bulgaria, many of which had resulted from the same factual situation and in which the applicants complained about public statements by State officials, declaring the applicants guilty while the criminal proceedings against them were pending (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 177-79, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Toni Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 37124/10, § 108, 27 January 2015; Slavov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58500/10, §§ 105-06, 10 November 2015; Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10, § 63, 31 March 2016; Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 55388/10, § 97, 31 March 2016; Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10, § 40, 31 March 2016; and Lolov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 6123/11, §§ 45-51, 21 February 2019). - EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 30336/10
ALEXEY PETROV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
This was so in a series of cases against Bulgaria, many of which had resulted from the same factual situation and in which the applicants complained about public statements by State officials, declaring the applicants guilty while the criminal proceedings against them were pending (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 177-79, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Toni Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 37124/10, § 108, 27 January 2015; Slavov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58500/10, §§ 105-06, 10 November 2015; Alexey Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10, § 63, 31 March 2016; Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 55388/10, § 97, 31 March 2016; Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10, § 40, 31 March 2016; and Lolov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 6123/11, §§ 45-51, 21 February 2019). - EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09
ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
The language used by the decision-maker is of critical importance in assessing the compatibility of the decision and its reasoning with Article 6 § 2 (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 126, ECHR 2013, and the cases cited therein). - EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78
Adolf ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
However, the applicant neither lodged a civil claim for compensation for a breach of her honour and dignity (see paragraph 44 above), nor asked the Vilnius Regional Court to continue examining the criminal case against her after it became time-barred and acquit her, in order to dispel any doubts as to her innocence (see paragraphs 33, 34 and 42 above; see, mutatis mutandis, Adolf v. Austria, 26 March 1982, § 40, Series A no. 49).
- EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21
NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA
They also pointed out that the Court had already acknowledged that the civil-law remedies in Lithuanian law were effective in respect of alleged violations of the presumption of innocence (see Janu?.keviciene v. Lithuania, no. 69717/14, §§ 59-63, 3 September 2019). - EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16
OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA
In such circumstances, only the civil-law remedy could, on the basis of the criteria set out in the Court's case-law, provide adequate and sufficient redress (see Lakatos and Others v. Serbia, no. 3363/08, §§ 108-11, 7 January 2014; Januskeviciene v. Lithuania, no. 69717/14, § 59, 3 September 2019, with further references). - EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19
MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA