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 ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  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, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  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

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  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, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  TARANENKO v. RUSSIA

  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, 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).
• 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, 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, 18.01.2022 - 4161/13

  KARUYEV v. RUSSIA

  63571/16 and 5 others, 13 February 2020, concerning the pouring of paint on statues of historical figures; Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, 30 October 2014, concerning the detaching of a ribbon from a wreath laid by the head of State; Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, 27 February 2018, concerning the frying of eggs and sausages over the "eternal flame" at a war memorial; Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, nos.
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 56635/13

  DI SILVIO c. ITALIE

  La Cour note que l'article 2 du Protocole no 7 règlemente pour l'essentiel des questions institutionnelles, telle que l'accès à une cour d'appel ou l'étendue du réexamen pouvant être effectué par celle-ci (Shvydka c. Ukraine, no 17888/12, § 49, 30 octobre 2014).

 
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 68537/13

  IBRAGIMOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has held that opinions, apart from being capable of being expressed through the media of artistic work, can also be expressed through conduct (see Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, § 204, 17 July 2018; Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, § 36, 12 June 2012; Murat Vural v. Turkey, no. 9540/07, §§ 54-56, 21 October 2014; Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 37-38, 30 October 2014; and Stern Taulats and Roura Capellera v. Spain, nos.
• EGMR - 11146/16 (anhängig)

  GRITSEVICH AND KIMAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine the applicants" right of appeal to have their convictions or sentences reviewed (compare Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014)?.
• EGMR - 41846/17 (anhängig)

  VINGORODOV v. RUSSIA

  Did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine the applicant's right of appeal to have his conviction or sentence reviewed (compare Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014)?.
• EGMR - 56105/17 (anhängig)

  MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  Was it compatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that the custodial sentence had been fully served before the appeal hearing could take place (see Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 46-55, 30 October 2014)?.
• EGMR - 74343/17 (anhängig)

  VALKOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Did the immediate execution of the sentence of administrative detention disclose violations of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see, in a similar context, Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014)?.
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 74576/13

  MALYNOVSKA v. UKRAINE

  The relevant provisions of the domestic legislation in force at the material time, as well as the general principles enshrined in the Court's case-law regarding Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, can be found in Shvydka v. Ukraine (no. 17888/12, §§ 16 and 48-52, 30 October 2014).
• EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 46005/11

  FIRAT c. GRÈCE

  Comme il ressort de la jurisprudence de la Cour, l'article 2 du Protocole no 7 à la Convention règle pour l'essentiel des aspects institutionnels, tels que l'accessibilité de la juridiction d'appel ou la portée du contrôle exercé par une telle juridiction (voir, par exemple, Pesti et Frodl c. Autriche (déc.), nos 27618/95 et 27619/95, CEDH 2000-I (extraits), Shvydka c. Ukraine, no 17888/12, § 49, 30 octobre 2014, et Ruslan Yakovenko c. Ukraine, no 5425/11, § 77, 4 juin 2015).
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 23486/12

  DORADO BAÚLDE v. SPAIN