Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZURABIANI v. GEORGIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZURABIANI v. GEORGIA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 29045/95

  MAHLER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  Moreover, in addition to interrupting and speaking in a loud voice, the applicant's address to the judge when he said, "would you swear at me now?!" (see paragraph 7 above) - rather sarcastic, can be compared to other cases in which the Court has found that the applicants' statements were insulting (see, for example, Kincses v. Hungary, no. 66232/10, 27 January 2015, where an advocate called into question the professional competence of a judge dealing with his case; Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 49910/06, 23 August 2011, in which counsel stated that the judge concerned had been "giving vent to her instincts" and harassing her witnesses; W.R. v. Austria, no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997, unreported, in which counsel had described the opinion of a judge as "ridiculous"; and Mahler v. Germany, no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, unreported, where counsel had asserted that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication").
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 39294/09

  PERUZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  They considered the entire exchange between the applicant and the judge, including the applicant's tone and voice, and the fact that he kept interrupting the judge, and noting the importance of a lawyer's professional conduct for the proper conduct of proceedings, found it unacceptable (see, in this connection Peruzzi v. Italy where the Court noted that lawyers were bound by the rules of professional conduct and were expected to contribute to the proper administration of justice, thereby maintaining public confidence in it (no. 39294/09, § 50, 30 June 2015)).
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  A. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  In the instant case there is nothing to suggest that the applicant could not have raised the substance of his criticism, which may or may not have been appropriate, without using inappropriate language (see A. v. Finland (dec.), no. 44998/98, 8 January 2004, with further references; see also Kincses, cited above, § 40).

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 66232/10

  KINCSES v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  Moreover, in addition to interrupting and speaking in a loud voice, the applicant's address to the judge when he said, "would you swear at me now?!" (see paragraph 7 above) - rather sarcastic, can be compared to other cases in which the Court has found that the applicants' statements were insulting (see, for example, Kincses v. Hungary, no. 66232/10, 27 January 2015, where an advocate called into question the professional competence of a judge dealing with his case; Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 49910/06, 23 August 2011, in which counsel stated that the judge concerned had been "giving vent to her instincts" and harassing her witnesses; W.R. v. Austria, no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997, unreported, in which counsel had described the opinion of a judge as "ridiculous"; and Mahler v. Germany, no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, unreported, where counsel had asserted that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication").
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  The phrase "authority of the judiciary" includes, in particular, the notion that the courts are, and are accepted by the public at large as being, the proper forum for the ascertainment of legal rights and obligations and the settlement of disputes relative thereto; further, that the public at large have respect for and confidence in the courts' capacity to fulfil that function (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 55, Series A no. 30, and Skałka, cited above, § 40).
• EGMR - 68271/14 (anhängig)

  HALL v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  Rn. 16 The Government submitted, with reference to the Court's judgment in Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland ([GC], nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14, 22 December 2020), that Article 6 was not applicable to the present case as it had not involved the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant and the fine imposed could not have been equated with a criminal sanction within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 16358/18

  ANGERJÄRV v. ESTONIA and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  In particular, the procedure stipulating custodial sanctions provides for the examination of contempt-of court-charges by another judicial formation with the participation of the accused, and the measure, if imposed, is subject to appeal (see paragraph 13 above; see Angerjärv and Greinoman v. Estonia, nos. 16358/18 and 34964/18, §§ 87-94, 4 October 2022; contrast Deli v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 42010/06, § 30, 22 October 2019).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3699/08

  Žugic ./. Kroatien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  The behaviour for which he was fined - acting inappropriately and obstructing the proceedings - was not classified as criminal in domestic law; and such a fine was not entered in the criminal record (see Žugić v. Croatia, no. 3699/08, § 65, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 37751/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  Furthermore, freedom of expression protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed but also the form in which they are conveyed (see, for example, Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 174, ECHR 2005-XIII, and Mariapori v. Finland, no. 37751/07, § 62, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 32458/96

  SADAY AGAINST TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  While parties are certainly entitled to comment on the administration of justice in order to protect their rights, their criticism must not overstep certain bounds (see Saday v. Turkey, no. 32458/96, § 34, 30 March 2006).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 68924/12

  SLOMKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.01.2024 - 56064/16

  AKTAY v. TURKEY and 2 applications
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 42010/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 59855/13

  MALYNOVSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.02.2002 - 50364/99

  KUBLI v. SWITZERLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.11.2025 - 61891/19

  TESIC v. SERBIA

  Rn. 41 Unlike in cases where remarks made by counsel were considered to be purely insulting or sarcastic (see Mahler v. Germany, no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, unreported, where counsel had asserted that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication"; Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 49910/06, 23 August 2011, where counsel had stated, inter alia, that the judge concerned had been "giving vent to her instincts" and harassing her witnesses; and Lasha Zurabiani v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22266/22, 25 February 2025, where counsel, in addition to interrupting and speaking in a loud voice, had addressed the judge with the words "would you swear at me now?!"), the applicant's submissions in the present case constituted genuine procedural grievances with a view to adversarial argument (contrast Backović, cited above, § 42).