Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LAUCHLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR - 75702/13

  "His position will have been substantially affected as soon as the suspicion against him is being seriously investigated and the prosecution case compiled: Shabelnik v Ukraine (application no 16404/03) (unreported) given on 19 February 2009, para 57. In Corigliano v Italy (1982) 5 EHRR 334, para 34 the court said that, whilst "charge" for the purposes of article 6(1) might in general be defined as the official notification given to the individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed an criminal offence, as it was put in Eckle, para 73, it may in some instances take the form of other measures which carry the implication of such an allegation... the words "official notification" should not be taken literally, and... events that happened after the moment when the test is to be taken to have been satisfied may inform the answer to the question whether the position of the individual has been substantially affected.

• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, among many other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 143, 10 September 2010, and O'Neill and Lauchlan v. the United Kingdom, no. 41516/10 and 75702/13, § 82, 28 June 2016).
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 48329/19

  ANCIENT BALTIC RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION "ROMUVA" v. LITHUANIA

  41516/10 and 75702/13, § 70, 28 June 2016).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 44108/15

  S.C.S. PETRINI & CIE c. MONACO

  Sur ce point, la Cour rappelle en particulier que si l'on ne saurait reprocher à une partie de tirer pleinement profit des ressources offertes par le droit national (voir, notamment, Erkner et Hofauer c. Autriche, 23 avril 1987, § 68, série A no 117, et O"Neill et Lauchlan c. Royaume-Uni, nos 41516/10 et 75702/13, § 92, 28 juin 2016), en l'espèce la longueur des procédures résulte aussi dans une large mesure de certains moyens de défense librement choisis par la requérante et dont elle doit supporter les conséquences (voir, mutatis mutandis, Buchholz c. Allemagne, 6 mai 1981, § 63, série A no 42).