Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KEZERASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KEZERASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (29)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  Such rules manifest the national legislature's concern to remove all reasonable doubts as to the impartiality of the judge or court concerned and constitute an attempt to ensure impartiality by eliminating the causes of such concerns (see Zahirović v. Croatia, no. 58590/11, § 35, 25 April 2013).

  Rn. 105 However, where an appellate court has to examine a case as to the facts and the law and make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence, it cannot determine the issue without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused for the purpose of proving that he did not commit the act allegedly constituting a criminal offence (see Hermi, cited above, § 64; see also, Dondarini v. San Marino, no. 50545/99, § 27, 6 July 2004, and Zahirović v. Croatia, no. 58590/11, § 56, 25 April 2013).

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 22431/20

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  Background information concerning Sh.T.'s election to the Supreme Court is summarised in Ugulava v. Georgia (no. 2) (no. 22431/20, §§ 8-15, 1 February 2024).

  Relying on the Court's finding in the case of Ugulava v. Georgia (no. 2) (no. 22431/20, §§ 36-43, 1 February 2024), in which a similar objection was upheld, the Government submitted that there were no reasons to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

• EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren und Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Kriterien für eine …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  However, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case (see O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, § 53, ECHR 2007-III).

• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

  YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  In view of the principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective, the right to a fair trial cannot be seen as effective unless the requests and observations of the parties are truly "heard", that is to say, properly examined by the tribunal (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, § 305 in fine, 26 September 2023, with further references).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  Rn. 102 The Court reiterates that the personal attendance of the defendant does not take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial hearing (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  Rn. 89 Moreover, in order that the courts may inspire in the public the confidence which is indispensable, account must also be taken of questions of internal organisation (see Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 30 (d), Series A no. 53).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  Rn. 101 That said, the obligation to hold a hearing is not absolute (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  Moreover, in cases relating to interference with rights secured under the Convention, the Court seeks to establish whether the reasons provided for decisions given by the domestic courts are automatic or stereotypical (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  The personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 47, Series A no. 154).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

  As regards the type of proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill will for personal reasons (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 25, Series A no. 86, and Morice, cited above, § 74).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87
• EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 38797/17

  SIGURTHORSSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

  HERMI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 5432/15

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 55859/15

  LAMATIC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 25624/02
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 54574/07

  PAUNOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

  MELIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 37376/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 30464/13

  AKHALAIA v. GEORGIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19

  MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 61112/12

  GOMEZ OLMEDA v. SPAIN

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.11.2025 - 11025/22

  PIRTSKHALAVA v. GEORGIA

  Rn. 46 The relevant legal framework concerning the structure of the Prosecutor General's Office in Georgia and the role and powers of the Prosecutor General has been summarised in the case of Kezerashvili v. Georgia (no. 11027/22, §§ 55-67, 5 December 2024).

  Lastly, they referred to the case of Kezerashvili v. Georgia (no. 11027/22, § 31, 5 December 2024) in which the applicant's representative had been successful in obtaining information about the full composition of the panel that included judge Sh.T. They also submitted that in Kezerashvili (ibid.) and in Ugulava v. Georgia (no. 2) (cited above) the respective applicants had been afforded "unlimited opportunities" to lodge motions requesting the recusal of the very same judge.

• EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 10089/18

  KAYA c. BELGIQUE

  La Cour a déjà eu à connaître d'un certain nombre d'affaires, y compris en matière pénale, dans lesquelles un juge a exercé successivement des fonctions différentes dans le cadre d'une même affaire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Piersack, précité, De Cubber, précité, Romenskiy c. Russie, no 22875/02, § 28, 13 juin 2013, et Kezerashvili c. Géorgie, no 11027/22, 5 décembre 2024).
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 22126/15

  BASTOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Moreover, the Court has found on numerous occasions that a civil-law remedy could be an effective way of addressing a complaint about allegedly prejudicial statements made in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings, either alone or in combination with raising the issue within the criminal proceedings against the applicant in that case (see Rytikov v. Ukraine, no. 52855/19, §§ 42-46, 23 May 2024; Kezerashvili v. Georgia, no. 11027/22, §§ 67-68, 5 December 2024; and Narbutas v. Lithuania, no. 14139/21, §§ 210-17, 19 December 2023).