Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZADUMOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (38)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 51554/99

  CARBONI contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  In support of their argument they referred to cases where the Court had concluded that under the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention, full acquittal, discontinuation of the proceedings, trial de novo or reopening of the proceedings had been considered as appropriate redress for a person having victim status under the Convention (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006; Olesky v. Poland (dec.), no. 1379/06, 16 June 2009; and Carboni v. Italy (dec.), no 51554/99, 12 February 2004).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  At the same time, it considers that the payment of monetary awards under Article 41 is designed to make reparation only for such consequences of a violation that cannot be remedied otherwise (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 250, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  In support of their argument they referred to cases where the Court had concluded that under the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention, full acquittal, discontinuation of the proceedings, trial de novo or reopening of the proceedings had been considered as appropriate redress for a person having victim status under the Convention (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006; Olesky v. Poland (dec.), no. 1379/06, 16 June 2009; and Carboni v. Italy (dec.), no 51554/99, 12 February 2004).

 
• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 1379/06

  JOZEF OLEKSY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  In support of their argument they referred to cases where the Court had concluded that under the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention, full acquittal, discontinuation of the proceedings, trial de novo or reopening of the proceedings had been considered as appropriate redress for a person having victim status under the Convention (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006; Olesky v. Poland (dec.), no. 1379/06, 16 June 2009; and Carboni v. Italy (dec.), no 51554/99, 12 February 2004).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  At the outset the Court reiterates that the guarantees in paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 of the Convention are specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 of this provision (see Al Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011); it will therefore consider the applicant's complaint under both provisions taken together (see Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 23, Series A no. 186, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 43, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 30749/12

  HOKKELING v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  The Court notes that it has previously concluded that a finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 of the Convention when similar procedural arrangements were in place under the domestic law (see, among recent authorities, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 315, ECHR 2016; Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, §§ 67-68, 14 February 2017; Sitnevskiy and Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 48016/06

  SITNEVSKIY AND CHAYKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  48016/06 and 7817/07, § 142, 10 November 2016; and A.T. v. Luxembourg, no. 30460/13, § 97, 9 April 2015).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 184-234, 10 January 2012; and Zherebin, cited above, §§ 74-82).
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  At the outset the Court reiterates that the guarantees in paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 of the Convention are specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 of this provision (see Al Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011); it will therefore consider the applicant's complaint under both provisions taken together (see Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 23, Series A no. 186, and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 43, Series A no. 238).

• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 12233/10

  LIVADNIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, 12 December 2017.

  Given the Court's findings in Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia (nos. 66215/12 and 4 others, § 28, 10 July 2018), the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present cases (see also Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).

• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 66152/14

  KUZMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Given the Court's findings in Kumitskiy and Others (cited above, § 17), the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present cases (see also Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 49853/10

  IVCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, § 81, 12 December 2017), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present cases.

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  In this context the Court notes that the domestic law provides for the reopening of the proceedings if the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, § 80, 12 December 2017), and does not find it necessary to make any further pronouncement on the necessity of individual measures in the present case.
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Eu égard à la possibilité en droit russe de la réouverture du procès à la suite d'un arrêt de la Cour constatant violation de la Convention (paragraphe 46 ci-dessus) ainsi qu'à la position de la Cour suprême concernant l'admission des dépositions obtenues prétendument au moyen de mauvais traitements (paragraphes 41-44 ci-dessus), la Cour considère que le constat de violation suffit en lui-même à compenser le préjudice moral subi par le requérant (Kormev, précité, § 96, Zadumov c. Russie, no 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 décembre 2017, et Kumitskiy et autres c. Russie, nos 66215/12 et 4 autres, § 28, 10 juillet 2018).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 4184/15

  OTEGI MONDRAGON AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

  The Court furthermore notes that it has previously concluded that a finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 of the Convention when such procedural arrangements were in place under the domestic law (see, among recent authorities, Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, §§ 67-68, 14 February 2017; and Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 2991/06

  BELUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the fact that domestic law provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention, and given the position of the Russian Supreme Court, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017, and most recently, Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 66215/12 and 4 others, § 28, 10 July 2018).
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 63160/13

  AZARSANOV AND BOROKOV v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the fact that domestic law provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017, and most recently, Kumitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 67312/12

  FIRSTOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a précédemment conclu dans des affaires russes que la réouverture de la procédure constituait le redressement le plus approprié pour une violation constatée des droits du requérant en la matière, étant donné l'existence de dispositions législatives explicites à cet effet et dans la mesure où une telle réouverture permet d'assurer la restitutio in integrum requise par l'article 41 (Zadumov c. Russie, no 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 décembre 2017).
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 37617/10

  CABRAL v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court furthermore notes that it has previously concluded that a finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 of the Convention when such procedural arrangements were in place under the domestic law (see, among recent authorities, Hokkeling v. the Netherlands, no. 30749/12, §§ 67-68, 14 February 2017; Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, §§ 80-81, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR - 15597/22 (anhängig)

  MARO? EVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 32671/13

  SLÁDEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 43861/13

  SCHÄFER AND TODOROVIC v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 62082/10

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 9867/06

  PODKORYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 11008/04

  TALATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12348/05

  ARKHANGELSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 66215/12

  KUMITSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 6261/16

  BARSEGIAN v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 60757/12

  ANZINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 41229/04

  MAGOMEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 52277/11

  DEMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 52151/09

  SHAPENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 5723/09

  ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 66637/12

  FUDIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 51498/12

  KOLTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 2075/14

  SOLOVJOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 23686/13

  KOZLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 27870/12

  MIKHAYLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 21891/12

  BOYKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 60123/10

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 41969/05

  SHESTAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 10093/06

  POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 45414/09

  IVAKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2020 - 46440/16

  MEDVEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 7779/17

  BOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 41214/04

  GAYEVOY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 28634/11

  KHASANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA