Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Nemtsov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2015, 2095

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  Moreover, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  Moreover, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).

 
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  In particular, the condition that there be no arbitrariness demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 50; O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X; and Hakobyan and Others, cited above, §§ 107 and 123).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

  O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  In particular, the condition that there be no arbitrariness demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 50; O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X; and Hakobyan and Others, cited above, §§ 107 and 123).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  That right is of primary importance in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  This ran contrary to the basic requirement that the prosecution has to prove its case and one of the fundamental principles of criminal law, namely, in dubio pro reo (see, mutatis mutandis, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 77, Series A no. 146; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 125, 28 November 2002; and Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic, no. 35450/04, § 49, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  The Court, however, is not bound by the findings of the domestic courts, although in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, pp. 17-18, §§ 29-30, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  In doing so, the Court remains sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000, and Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  The Court reiterates that in order to determine whether an offence qualifies as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 6 the Convention, it is necessary to ascertain whether or not the provision defining the offence belongs, in the legal system of the respondent State, to the criminal law; next the "very nature of the offence" and the degree of severity of the penalty risked must be considered (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 95, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 28793/02

  CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S PARTY v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 25333/06

  EUROPAPRESS HOLDING D.O.O. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  HAKOBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 926/08

  KARELIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously examined applications relating to the administrative offence proceedings under Russian law and found violations of Article 6 of the Convention, in particular on account of the fairness requirement (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 94-100, ECHR 2006-III; Malofeyeva, cited above, §§ 97-120; Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 36-69, 3 October 2013; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 81-94, 31 July 2014; and Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 76-85, 4 December 2014).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 37553/05

  KUDREVICIUS ET AUTRES c. LITUANIE

  At the same time, notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 must also be considered in the light of Article 10, where the aim of the exercise of freedom of assembly is the expression of personal opinions (see Ezelin, cited above, § 37; Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP) v. Turkey [GC], no. 23885/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-VIII; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 41, 24 July 2012; and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 62, 31 July 2014), as well as the need to secure a forum for public debate and the open expression of protest (see Éva Molnár v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, § 42, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  However, in the Court's view, what matters is that the fine was not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage but was punitive and deterrent in nature, which is also a characteristic of criminal penalties (see Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 43; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 83, 31 July 2014; Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 38, ECHR 2006-XIV; and, by contrast, Escoubet [GC], § 37, and Müller-Hartburg, §§ 47-48, both cited above).

  [8] See Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 73, 4 December 2014; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 76-77 and § 93, 31 July 2014; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 117-118, 30 May 2013; and Makhmudov v. Russia, no. 35082/04, § 83, 26 July 2007.

 
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 11519/20

  GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that in the present case the questions of lawfulness and of the existence of a legitimate aim cannot be dissociated from the question of whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" (see S. and Marper, cited above, § 99; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 75, 31 July 2014; and Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos. 60921/17 and 7202/18, § 77, 30 April 2019).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Even after that judgment the Court has on a number of occasions dismissed or declined to examine complaints under Article 18 without giving detailed reasons, as it had done before 2004 (see, among others, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 206, ECHR 2005-IV; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129-30, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2016; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, § 55, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 23199/17

  Türkische Journalisten aufgrund von Spekulationen festgenommen

  Similarly, in Nemtsov v. Russia (no. 1774/11, 31 July 2014) the Court found it established that "the applicant had been arrested, detained and convicted of an administrative offence arbitrarily and unlawfully" and that "this had had an effect of preventing or discouraging him and others from participating in protest rallies and engaging actively in opposition politics" (in violation of Articles 3, 5 § 1, 6 § 1, 11 and 13), yet it held that Mr Nemtsov's Article 18 complaint "raised no separate issue and it [was] not necessary to examine whether... there [had] been a violation of that provision" (§§ 129 and 130; emphasis added).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

  MUSHEGH SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court also found that by dismissing all evidence in the defendant's favour without justification, the domestic courts had placed an extreme and unattainable burden of proof on the applicant, contrary to the basic requirement that the prosecution has to prove its case and to one of the fundamental principles of criminal law, namely in dubio pro reo (see Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 92, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  KASPAROV v. RUSSIA

  In the light of the above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention (see Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129 and 130, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 28359/08

  INAL v. TURKEY

  In deciding whether applicants have received a fair hearing, the Court does not take the place of the domestic courts, who are in the best position to assess the evidence before them, establish facts and interpret domestic law (see, among other authorities, Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 97, 23 February 2016, with further references therein, and Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 87, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR - 78686/17 (anhängig)

  VASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  In view of the Court's findings in Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 16694/13

  ASAINOV AND SIBIRYAK v. RUSSIA