Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 14, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (27)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07

  Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  A more detailed description of the court proceedings against Yukos and its owners and executives can be found in OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, 20 September 2011); Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013); and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2) (nos. 42757/07 and 51111/07, 14 January 2020).

  42757/07 and 51111/07, § 430, 14 January 2020).

• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  For more details concerning the criminal proceedings against Mr Pichugin, see Pichugin v. Russia (no. 38623/03, 23 October 2012), and Pichugin v. Russia ([Committee], no. 38958/07, 6 June 2017).

  Nothing in the case file indicated that the defence encountered any obstacles to putting questions to those witnesses or obtaining answers from them (contrast Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 202, 23 October 2012, where the prosecution witness refused to answer questions put by the defence).

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Michail Borissowitsch Chodorkowski

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  A more detailed description of the court proceedings against Yukos and its owners and executives can be found in OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, 20 September 2011); Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013); and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2) (nos. 42757/07 and 51111/07, 14 January 2020).

  For a general overview of criminal proceedings in Russia at the time of the events, see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 377-85, 25 July 2013).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention affords the defendant the right to be informed, in detail, not only of the cause of the accusation, that is to say the acts he is alleged to have committed and on which the accusation is based, but also the legal characterisation given to those acts (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II, and Szabo and Others v. Romania, no. 8193/06, § 49, 18 March 2014).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  Having regard to the facts of the case and in the light of all the material in its possession as well as its findings under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see paragraphs 168-170 above), the Court considers that, since it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application, there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Stoimenovikj and Miloshevikj v. North Macedonia, no. 59842/14, § 45, 25 March 2021).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  The applicant referred to the Court's case-law (Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 203, ECHR 2004-II; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 240, 22 December 2008; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 177, 22 April 2010; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 139, ECHR 2013; and Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, § 195, 20 March 2018), in which the Court indicated individual measures.
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

  Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  The applicant referred to the Court's case-law (Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 203, ECHR 2004-II; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 240, 22 December 2008; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 177, 22 April 2010; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 139, ECHR 2013; and Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, § 195, 20 March 2018), in which the Court indicated individual measures.
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  It notes that the criminal charges against the applicant were based on the same facts as those in the proceedings against Mr Pichugin (see paragraph 28 above), and the facts established in the proceedings against Mr Pichugin and any legal findings made therein were directly relevant to the applicant's case (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 103, 23 February 2016).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5829/04

  Russland wegen Chodorkowski verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  They referred to the Court's judgments in Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011); OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, 20 September 2011); Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev, cited above; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev (no. 2), cited above, in which the Court had not found a violation of Article 18 of the Convention on account of alleged political prosecution in Yukos-related cases, and submitted that the applicant had been prosecuted on the basis of evidence collected against him.
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  The applicant referred to the Court's case-law (Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 203, ECHR 2004-II; Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 240, 22 December 2008; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, § 177, 22 April 2010; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 139, ECHR 2013; and Sahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, § 195, 20 March 2018), in which the Court indicated individual measures.
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  [ENG]
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 2257/12

  ZADUMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 59842/14

  STOIMENOVIK AND MILOSEVIK v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 8193/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  DADAYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 34313/06

  OLGA KUDRINA v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 27245/95

  CONNOLLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 38958/07

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14

  EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen

  In recent cases, the Court has concluded that the question of whether Article 6 contains any express or implied restrictions which may form the subject of the Court's examination under Article 18 remained open (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017, and Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, § 123, 18 January 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.11.2024 - 1618/18

  SOUROULLAS KEY AND ZANETTOS v. CYPRUS

  29084/07 and 1191/08, §§ 126, 194, 28 October 2020; Keskin v. the Netherlands, no. 2205/16, § 38, 19 January 2021; Negulescu v. Romania, no. 11230/12, § 43, 16 February 2021; Hasáliková v. Slovakia, no. 39654/15, § 55, 24 June 2021; Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, § 162, 18 January 2022; Hamdani v. Switzerland, no. 10644/17, §§ 29, 36, 28 March 2023; Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, § 310; Snijders, cited above, at § 55; Škoberne v. Slovenia, no. 19920/20, § 103, 15 February 2024; and W.R. v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 72.

  [25] See Delcourt v. Belgium, no. 2689/65, § 25, 17 January 1970; Artico v. Italy, no. 6694/74, § 33, 13 May 1980; Moreira de Azevedo v. Portugal, no. 11296/84, § 66, 23 October 1990; De Cubber v. Belgium, no. 9186/80, §§ 30, 32, 26 October 1984; Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, §§ 134-136, 18 January 2022; and Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 49, 10 July 2012.

• EGMR, 27.08.2024 - 989/18

  W.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  29084/07 and 1191/08, § 122, 28 October 2020; Negulescu v. Romania, no. 11230/12, § 43, 16 February 2021; Hasáliková v. Slovakia, no. 39654/15, § 60, 24 June 2021; Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, §§ 134-136, 18 January 2022; Hamdani v. Suisse, no. 10644/17, §§ 28-29, 28 March 2023 (where the Court noted that there had been an evolution in its case-law on the right to free assistance from a lawyer, referring to the previous case-law, including Pakelli v. Germany, no. 8398/78, §§ 41-42, 25 April 1983 cited above); Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, § 366, 26 September 2023; Snijders, cited above, § 55; and Škoberne v. Slovenia, no. 19920/20, §§ 99, 103, and 109-111, 15 February 2024.

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 62807/09

  MASLOVA v. RUSSIA

  However, in the light of its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised in the applications and that there is no need to rule separately on the remaining complaints (see Turbylev, cited above, §§ 92-97, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, § 191, 18 January 2022 and Kutayev v. Russia, no. 17912/15, § 110, 24 January 2023).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 58997/18

  NIKEHASANI v. ALBANIA

  Furthermore, the applicant has not substantiated her allegation that the manner in which the vetting proceedings were conducted was, in so far as Article 6 is concerned, arbitrary and pursued an ulterior purpose of persecuting her for, essentially, her husband's political views or activities (compare Xhoxhaj, cited above, § 296; Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 129, 23 February 2016; Navalnyye v. Russia, no. 101/15, § 88, 17 October 2017; and Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, §§ 124-25, 18 January 2022, in the context of a complaint under Article 18 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 13.01.2026 - 40764/20

  VIEIRA COELHO v. PORTUGAL

  Rn. 16 In view of the facts of the case, specifically the 30-minute adjournment afforded before the third hearing, the morning adjournment of the fourth hearing, the six-day adjournment granted during the fifth hearing, and the opportunity given to C.C. to examine the case file outside court premises (see paragraphs 7-9 above), and further considering the complexity of the trial and the competing interests at stake, particularly the rights of the other parties to a timely resolution of the case, the Court finds that the judge afforded C.C. sufficient time to examine the case file (contrast Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 101-03, 2 November 2010, and Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, §§ 151-56, 18 January 2022).
• EGMR - 2700/24 (anhängig)

  LA MANNA v. ITALY

  29900/96 and 3 others, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2001-VIII; Gregačevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, §§ 49-52, 10 July 2012; and Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, § 152, 18 January 2022)?.
• EGMR - 12116/19 (anhängig)

  NEGRU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 169, ECHR 2010)? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the conditions afforded to the defence to submit its written observations to the Supreme Court of Justice (see Zahirović v. Croatia, no. 58590/11, §§ 58-64, 25 April 2013, and Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, § 152, 18 January 2022)?.
• EGMR - 16416/18 (anhängig)

  BARAGHIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 169, ECHR 2010)? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the conditions afforded to the defence to submit its written observations before the Supreme Court of Justice (see Zahirovic v. Croatia, no. 58590/11, §§ 58-64, 25 April 2013 and Nevzlin v. Russia, no. 26679/08, § 152, 18 January 2022)?.