Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHVYDKA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -General (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of conviction) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHVYDKA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  Having regard to the aforementioned analogy, it appears pertinent to reiterate here the Court's well-established principle on the importance of the right of access to a court, having regard to the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85

  Oberschlick ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  Moreover, Article 10 of the Convention protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed but also the form in which they are conveyed (see, among many other authorities, Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 57, Series A no. 204, and Women On Waves and Others v. Portugal, no. 31276/05, §§ 29 and 30, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  The Court notes that the Contracting States in principle enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining how the right secured by Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention is to be exercised (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 96, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  Furthermore, the Court must examine with particular scrutiny cases where sanctions imposed by the national authorities for non-violent conduct involve a prison sentence (see Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 87, 15 May 2014).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies normally requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been brought before the domestic courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §§ 604 and 605, 13 November 2003).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  In assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalty imposed are among the factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I, and Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 38, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

  Meinungsfreiheit (konstitutive Bedeutung in der Demokratie; Eingriff; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  In assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalty imposed are among the factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I, and Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 38, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23556/94

  CEYLAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  In assessing the proportionality of the interference, the nature and severity of the penalty imposed are among the factors to be taken into account (see Ceylan v. Turkey [GC], no. 23556/94, § 37, ECHR 1999-IV, Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-I, and Skalka v. Poland, no. 43425/98, § 38, 27 May 2003).
• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 17888/12

  One of the factors, which drove the Court to that conclusion, was the limited period of validity of each decree imposing the special regime (no. 25498/94, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-X; see also Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, §§ 73 and 74, ECHR 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 25809/17

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

  No. 7 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal: the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately while the applicant's appeal against this decision was examined three days later (see Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, § 52, 30 October 2014, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10 April 2018).

  No. 7 - delayed review of conviction by a higher tribunal: the sentence of administrative detention imposed on the applicant by the first-instance court was executed immediately while the applicant's appeal against this decision was examined three days later (see Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, § 52, 30 October 2014, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10 April 2018).

• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  Detaching a ribbon from a wreath laid by the President of Ukraine at a monument to a famous Ukrainian poet on Independence Day has also been regarded by the Court as a form of political expression (see Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 37-38, 30 October 2014).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 54381/08

  TSVETKOVA v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  A similar issue arising in the context of Ukrainian legislation was examined by the Court in Shvydka v. Ukraine (no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014):.

• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 10783/14

  HANDZHIYSKI v. BULGARIA

  It is hence clear that with his act he sought to engage in political protest, and "impart" his "ideas" about the government and the political party which supported it (see, mutatis mutandis, Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, §§ 7-10 and 54-56, 21 October 2014; Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 37-38, 30 October 2014; Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, §§ 7-8 and 100, 27 February 2018; Mătăsaru v. the Republic of Moldova, nos.
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 52358/15

  GENOV AND SARBINSKA v. BULGARIA

  They found, with reference to the Court's rulings under Article 10 of the Convention in Murat Vural v. Turkey (no. 9540/07, 21 October 2014) and Shvydka v. Ukraine (no. 17888/12, 30 October 2014), that it had not been wrongful to spray-paint the monument, and that this had therefore not amounted to an offence.

  It can thus be accepted - in particular in the light of the pre-existing case-law of the former Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation under Article 325 § 1 (see paragraph 35 above) - that the applicants' act could reasonably be characterised by the Bulgarian courts as hooliganism within the provision's meaning (see, mutatis mutandis, Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, § 39, 30 October 2014, and Handzhiyski, cited above, § 46).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13764/15

  MARTYNYUK v. RUSSIA

  Following its judgment in the similar context of Ukrainian legislation (see Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014), the Court dealt with the issue in respect of Russia in Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 74768/10

  CHERNEGA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  [47] See, mutatis mutandis, Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 53 and 54, 30 October 2014.
• EGMR, 23.06.2026 - 34790/23

  KARCHAVA v. GEORGIA

  By contrast, the applicant's wholly peaceful conduct stands markedly apart from cases such as Handzhiyski (cited above, §§ 54-58), where placing Santa Claus accessories on a political leader's statue was treated as symbolic expression within the scope of Article 10, Murat Vural v. Turkey (no. 9540/07, §§ 57-68, 21 October 2014), in which the act of pouring paint on a statue of a historic figure was not equated with violent conduct, or Shvydka v. Ukraine (no. 17888/12, §§ 37-42, 30 October 2014), where detaching a ribbon from a wreath laid by the Ukrainian president was assessed under the proportionality test of Article 10. Indeed, the Court reiterates that where demonstrations do not result in acts of violence, the public authorities must show a certain degree of tolerance (see Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, § 29, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 20962/15

  KINDLHOFER v. AUSTRIA

  I share the opinion of the Court expressed in the case of Shvydka v. Ukraine (no. 17888/12, § 50, 30 October 2014), in which it held that where the right to a review under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 exists, it should be effective in the same way as the right of access to a court enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial.
• EGMR, 13.02.2020 - 63571/16

  IBRAHIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 6 other applications

  Detaching a ribbon from a wreath laid by the President of Ukraine at a monument to a famous Ukrainian poet on Independence Day has also been regarded by the Court as a form of political expression (see Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 37-38, 30 October 2014).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 4161/13

  KARUYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2025 - 78121/16

  BASARI, TOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 29760/21

  MZHAVANADZE v. GEORGIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 69714/16

  MATASARU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 51127/18

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 56635/13

  DI SILVIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 68537/13

  IBRAGIMOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.11.2020 - 36046/15

  MIGORYANU AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF THE CITY OF IZMAIL v. …
• EGMR - 74343/17 (anhängig)

  VALKOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 72316/17 (anhängig)

  VOLKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 26.08.2025 - 37957/14

  FTITI v. GREECE
• EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 11899/17

  RYBIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 58925/14

  VORONTSOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 46005/11

  FIRAT c. GRÈCE
• EGMR - 41846/17 (anhängig)

  VINGORODOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 56105/17 (anhängig)

  MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 6251/14

  IGOR LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 74576/13

  MALYNOVSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 53098/17

  MATASARU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 23486/12

  DORADO BAÚLDE v. SPAIN