Rechtsprechung
EGMR - 73328/17 |
Anhängiges Verfahren
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 41827/02
KOMMERSANT MOLDOVY v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR - 73328/17
Did the applicant's conviction amount to an interference with his right to freedom of religion or expression under Articles 9 § 1 or 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Articles 9 § 2 and 10 § 2? Did the domestic courts adduce "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts and the applicable standards under Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did they specify which parts of the sermon were problematic (see Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova, no. 41827/02, § 36, 9 January 2007)? Did they draw their own conclusions from the expert reports (see point 23 of the Supreme Court's resolution no. 11 of 28 June 2011)? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? Did the interference correspond to a "pressing social need"? Was the sanction imposed proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?. - EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
Auszug aus EGMR - 73328/17
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, as regards the non-admission of Ms N."s "specialist" opinion of 21 June 2017 as evidence at the trial, coupled with the admission as evidence of the expert reports obtained by the prosecution, was there a disbalance between the defence and the prosecution in the area of collecting and adducing expert evidence (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 717-35, 25 July 2013)?.