Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOKHOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  It prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62) but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X; and Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  STEEL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  Article 6 § 1 leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used in guaranteeing litigants these rights (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  The presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  It prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62) but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X; and Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  The Court reiterates that the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms, which is one of the elements of the broader concept of a fair hearing, requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made or evidence adduced by the other party and to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).

• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 2130/10

  Vorliegen einer Menschenrechtsverletzung durch die Feststellung einer erneuten …

  Das Recht auf Achtung der Unschuldsvermutung dient dazu, Personen vor Äußerungen von Amtsträgern zu schützen, welche die Öffentlichkeit dahingehend beeinflussen, die Betreffenden für schuldig zu halten, bevor der gesetzliche Beweis ihrer Schuld erbracht worden ist, und der Bewertung des Sachverhalts durch die zuständigen Tatgerichte vorgreifen, und so ein faires Verfahren vor diesen Gerichten sicherzustellen (vgl. Allenet de Ribemont ./. Frankreich, 10. Februar 1995, Rdnrn. 35 and 41, Serie A Band 308; und Mokhov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28245/04, Rdnr. 28, 4. März 2010).
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 68556/13

  KREBS v. GERMANY

  Die Bestimmung zielt darauf ab, zu verhindern, dass die Fairness eines Strafverfahrens untergraben wird, indem in engem Zusammenhang mit diesem Verfahren präjudizierende Äußerungen getätigt werden (siehe Mokhov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28245/04, Rdnr. 28, 4. März 2010;… und D. ./. Deutschland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17103/10, Rdnr. 41, 27. Februar 2014).
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 5386/10

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  The Court has thus found a violation of Article 6 in cases in which the nature of the civil dispute, including claims concerning, inter alia, ill-treatment by the police, bad conditions of detention and defamation, was such as to justify the claimant's personal presence before the court, irrespective of whether or not he or she had been represented at the hearing (see, among other authorities, Kovalev v. Russia, no. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007; Sokur v. Russia, no. 23243/03, § 35, 15 October 2009; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, § 111, 17 December 2009; Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 46-47, 4 March 2010; Insanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16133/08, § 145, 14 March 2013; Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 35726/10

  KANGERS v. LATVIA

  The Court has held that an ultimate finding of guilt cannot negate the applicant's initial right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (see Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 49, ECHR 2006-X, compare also Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, § 32, 4 March 2010 and Kolomenskiy v. Russia, no. 27297/07, § 107, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  TSVETELIN PETKOV v. BULGARIA

  In that connection the Court recalls that, in a series of cases in which it examined the question of personal participation of applicants in judicial proceedings as a "fair trial" issue under Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sokur v. Russia, no. 23243/03, § 30 et seq., 15 October 2009; Kovalev v. Russia, no. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007; Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, § 49, 12 June 2012; Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008; Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 41 et seq., 4 March 2010), it found a violation of that provision as a result of the applicants not having been given an opportunity to take part in hearings, when their participation would have been crucial as their claims had been largely based on their personal experience.