Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CIVINSKAITE v. LITHUANIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CIVINSKAITÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 6091/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  At its 98th plenary session, held on 21-22 March 2014, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) adopted the Amicus Curiae brief in the case of Rywin v. Poland (nos. 6091/06, 4047/07 and 4070/07), which at that time was pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

  Accordingly, the purpose of the parliamentary inquiry was not the same as that of either the criminal proceedings concerning D.K.'s complaints or the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Rywin v. Poland, nos. 6091/06 and 2 others, § 226, 18 February 2016; see also the position of the Venice Commission on the purposes of parliamentary inquiries in paragraph 91 above).

• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9043/05

  Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  The Court observes that none of those statements referred to the applicant or implied that she had been responsible for any of the alleged inadequacies in the criminal proceedings (see Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, § 104, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  In other words, the effect of Article 6 is, among others, to place the "tribunal" under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence presented by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant (see, among many other authorities, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I, and Paliutis v. Lithuania, no. 34085/09, § 39, 24 November 2015).

• EGMR, 21.05.2002 - 28856/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  However, the Court considers it necessary, when examining proceedings that fall within the civil-law aspect of Article 6, to draw inspiration from its approach to criminal-law matters (see Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV; Carmel Saliba v. Malta, no. 24221/13, § 67, 29 November 2016; and Hodžić v. Croatia, no. 28932/14, § 67, 4 April 2019).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  In such circumstances, the Court does not consider that the President's statement with regard to the penalties to be given to the "Kaunas prosecutors" gave cause to doubt the independence and impartiality of the courts in the proceedings concerning the applicant's individual liability (see, mutatis mutandis, Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 163, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 6569/04

  ARRIGO AND VELLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  In the present case, it does not escape the Court's attention that neither of the administrative courts which examined the applicant's complaint addressed her argument, raised before both the first-instance court and the appellate court, that the fairness of the proceedings had been prejudiced by public statements of politicians and by media reporting (see paragraphs 52, 60, 61 and 68 above; contrast Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04, 10 May 2005, and Paulikas, cited above, § 25).
• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 147/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  Accordingly, those proceedings were of a purely disciplinary nature and did not involve the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant (see Kamenos v. Cyprus, no. 147/07, §§ 50-53, 31 October 2017, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 57435/09

  PAULIKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that, having raised her complaints before the administrative courts, the applicant was not required to institute any additional proceedings (see Paulikas v. Lithuania, no. 57435/09, § 41, 24 January 2017, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 67068/11

  STANKUNAITE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  The domestic proceedings giving rise to the present application stemmed from the same facts as those described in Stankūnaitė v. Lithuania (no. 67068/11, §§ 7-9, 18-29 and 109, 29 October 2019).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  It considers that the essence of the applicant's grievance was that high-ranking State officials had encouraged the public to believe that he was guilty before that question had been determined by the courts, rather than that the courts' decisions in the criminal proceedings had actually been influenced by any such statements (compare and contrast Paulikas v. Lithuania, no. 57435/09, §§ 40 and 44, 24 January 2017, and, in the context of civil proceedings, Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania, no. 21218/12, §§ 103 and 105, 15 September 2020); in fact, he was acquitted by the first-instance court (see paragraph 95 above).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  The Court notes in this connection that it has previously acknowledged, in cases concerning the fairness of proceedings, that public statements made by high-ranking politicians might, in view of their content and the manner in which they were made, be seen as attempts to exert undue influence on judges and, therefore, constitute an element to be examined in determining whether the right to an "independent and impartial tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been respected in the circumstances of the respective case (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 80, ECHR 2002-VII; Kinský v. the Czech Republic, no. 42856/06, §§ 94-95, 9 February 2012; Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 162, 1 July 2014; Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29908/11, §§ 146-48, 21 January 2016; and Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania, no. 21218/12, § 119, 15 September 2020).
• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 14175/16

  JÓHANNES BALDURSSON v. ICELAND and 3 other applications

  The Court limits itself to observing that the first applicant's arguments were not vague, submitted in a passing manner or left completely unsubstantiated (compare Ilyadi v. Russia, no. 6642/05, § 44, 5 May 2011, and contrast Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania, no. 21218/12, § 143, 15 September 2020).

• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 61721/19

  KUBÁT v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC and 5 other applications

  Furthermore, it was not contrary to Article 6 for a court not to respond to less crucial arguments put forward by an applicant if the proceedings as a whole could be described as fair (the Government referred to Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania, no. 21218/12, §§ 142-144, 15 September 2020).
• EGMR, 18.06.2026 - 12694/22

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints similar to the one in the case, namely concerning failures of domestic courts to provide adequate reasons for their decisions (see, for example, Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A; Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, 10 August 2006; Petrović and Others v. Montenegro, no. 18116/15, 17 July 2018; Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania, no. 21218/12, 15 September 2020).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 30745/18

  COTORA c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà estimé cette disposition applicable sous son volet civil à des procédures disciplinaires concernant des magistrats lorsque des sanctions telles que la révocation, la rétrogradation ou une réduction de salaire étaient en jeu (Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá c. Portugal [GC], nos 55391/13 et 2 autres, § 120, 6 novembre 2018, Di Giovanni c. Italie, no 51160/06, §§ 36-38, 9 juillet 2013, et Čivinskaitė c. Lituanie, no 21218/12, § 95, 15 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 14.10.2025 - 42514/16

  TSATANI c. GRÈCE

  It has also applied the Eskelinen criteria to a dispute regarding the premature termination of the term of office of a chief prosecutor (see Kövesi v. Romania, no. 3594/19, §§ 124-25, 5 May 2020), to the demotion of a prosecutor (see Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania, no. 21218/12, § 95, 15 September 2020), or to the suspension of a prosecutor general (see Stoianoglo v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 19371/22, §§ 30-35 and 38-39, 24 October 2023).
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 72437/11

  DONEV c. BULGARIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà estimé cette disposition applicable sous son volet civil à des procédures disciplinaires concernant des magistrats lorsque des sanctions telles que la révocation, la rétrogradation ou une réduction de salaire étaient en jeu (Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá c. Portugal [GC], nos 55391/13 et 2 autres, § 120, 6 novembre 2018, Di Giovanni c. Italie, no 51160/06, §§ 36-38, 9 juillet 2013, et Čivinskaitė c. Lituanie, no 21218/12, § 95, 15 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 36946/12

  IVANOV c. BULGARIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà estimé cette disposition applicable sous son volet civil à des procédures disciplinaires concernant des magistrats lorsque des sanctions telles que la révocation, la rétrogradation ou une réduction de salaire étaient en jeu (Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá c. Portugal [GC], nos 55391/13 et 2 autres, § 120, 6 novembre 2018, Di Giovanni c. Italie, no 51160/06, §§ 36-38, 9 juillet 2013, et Civinskaite c. Lituanie, no 21218/12, § 95, 15 septembre 2020).
• EGMR, 26.05.2026 - 6864/19
  La Cour rappelle que même si une procédure pouvait aboutir au licenciement, pareille sanction reste de nature disciplinaire (Čivinskaitė c. Lituanie, no 21218/12, § 98, 15 septembre 2020 ; et Kamenos c. Chypre, no 147/07, § 51, 31 octobre 2017).
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 4028/23

  AMAR c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 36894/23

  VIEIRA OLIVEIRA v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 68907/14

  KORGUN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.02.2023 - 60804/19

  SERBAN-PARAU c. ROUMANIE