Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13, 28671/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- zeit.de (Pressebericht, 23.02.2016)
Urteil gegen Kreml-Gegner Alexej Nawalny gerügt
In Nachschlagewerken
- Wikipedia(Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)+3Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben BezugEGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12Nawalny-Demos auch ohne Erlaubnis
EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"
EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
NAVALNYY (VII) v. RUSSIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 18 MRK
[ENG] - spiegel.de (Meldung mit Bezug zur Entscheidung, 16.11.2016)
Kreml-Kritiker: Oberster Gerichtshof hebt Urteil gegen Nawalny auf
Wird zitiert von ... (45) Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Michail Borissowitsch Chodorkowski
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
11082/06 and 13772/05, § 743, 25 July 2013; and Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, §§ 42-43, 27 February 2014).11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013; Cebotari v. Moldova, no. 35615/06, 13 November 2007; Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV; and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013.
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
[11]11. Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 64, Series A no. 24. - EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
[14]14. Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, §§ 54 and 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 72, Reports 1996-II; Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 49, Series A no. 35; Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 67, ECHR 2009 (extracts); and Guérin v. France, 29 July 1998, § 37, Reports 1998-V.
- EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
Untersuchungshaft Timoschenkos "rechtswidrig"
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11
Luzenko ./. Ukraine
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, §§ 106-07, 3 July 2012. - EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09
VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
Moreover, awards for costs and expenses are linked to the finding of a violation of the Convention, violations of Article 6 of the Convention not being an exception (see, as a recent example, Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10, §§ 68 and 71, 26 March 2015, where the Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and made an award for costs and expenses). - EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 17103/10
Verletzung des Grundsatzes der Unschuldsvermutung gegenüber einem türkischen …
- EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
The Convention does not prohibit presumptions of fact or of law in criminal cases, but it requires States "to confine them within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence" (see Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, § 28, Series A no. 141-A, and Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 24, ECHR 2004-II). - EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9043/05
Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
To be effective for Convention purposes, therefore, any waiver of procedural rights must always be established in an unequivocal manner, must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance and must not run counter to any important public interest (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 135, 17 September 2009, and Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2014 (extracts), with further references). - EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13
Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97
A.M. v. ITALY
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05
[ENG]
- EuG, 02.02.2022 - T-799/17
Das Gericht weist die Klage von Scania ab und bestätigt die von der Kommission …
Zudem hat der EGMR betont, dass die Begründung der Gerichtsentscheidungen in einer Art und Weise zu formulieren ist, die eine mögliche vorzeitige Beurteilung der Schuld der betroffenen Dritten vermeidet, die die faire Prüfung der gegen sie in einem gesonderten Verfahren erhobenen Vorwürfe gefährden könnte (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 27. Februar 2014, Karaman/Deutschland, CE:ECHR:0227JUD001710310, §§ 64 und 65, und EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Navalnyy und Ofitserov/Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD004663213' § 99).Rn. 128 Ein Schuldanerkenntnis der am Vergleichsverfahren beteiligten Kartellteilnehmer kann sich jedoch auf die Umstände bezüglich einer Beteiligung eines "anderen Unternehmens", im vorliegenden Fall Scania, auswirken, das der Mitwirkung an demselben Kartell verdächtigt wird (…vgl. in diesem Sinne Urteil vom 28. März 2019, Pometon/Kommission, T-433/16, EU:T:2019:201, Rn. 92; vgl. in diesem Sinne und entsprechend EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Navalnyy und Ofitserov/Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD004663213, § 103).
Folglich muss die Kommission dafür Sorge tragen, dass die von den Vergleichsparteien zugegebenen Tatsachen nicht in Bezug auf eine nicht an diesem Verfahren teilnehmende Partei wie Scania akzeptiert werden, ohne dass im ordentlichen Verfahren eine vollständige und angemessene Prüfung anhand der von dieser Partei vorgetragenen Argumente und Beweise erfolgt (vgl. in diesem Sinne und entsprechend EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Navalnyy und Ofitserov/Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD004663213, §§ 103 bis 105, und vom 31. Oktober 2017, Bauras/Litauen, CE:ECHR:2017:1031JUD005679513, § 53).
- EGMR, 17.09.2024 - 16678/22
C.O. v. GERMANY
Wenn solche Tatsachen jedoch eingeführt werden müssen, sollte es das Gericht vermeiden, mehr Informationen zu geben als für die Bewertung der strafrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit der in dem betreffenden Verfahren angeklagten Personen nötig (siehe K., a. a. O., Rn. 64; siehe auch sinngemäß in Bezug auf Artikel 6 Abs. 1, Navalnyy und Ofitserov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 46632/13 und 28671/14, Rn. 99, 23. - EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15
Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"
In the same period, the first applicant ran an increasingly public anti-corruption campaign targeting high-ranking public officials (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 15, 23 February 2016).There are also two separate cases currently pending before the Grand Chamber in which applicants have brought complaints under Article 18: Merabishvili v. Georgia (no. 72508/13, 14 June 2016) and Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 4 April 2016).
The present case can be distinguished from Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016), on which the judgment is based, since in that case there was no allegation similar to that raised in the present case and referred to in paragraph 4 above.
- EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12
Nawalny-Demos auch ohne Erlaubnis
He relied, inter alia, on the Court's judgments in Navalnyy and Yashin (cited above, § 73) and Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 119, 23 February 2016) as evidence of a tangible political element to his treatment. - EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20
YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY
46632/13 and 28671/14, §§ 103-20, 23 February 2016; Navalnyye, cited above, §§ 81-84; and Ballıktaş Bingöllü v. Turkey, no. 76730/12, §§ 78-84, 22 June 2021). - EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14
EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen
In this connection, the Court's case-law shows different approaches: whereas in Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 129, 23 February 2016) and Navalnyye v. Russia (no. 101/15, §§ 88-89, 17 October 2017), in the circumstances relevant to those cases, the Court rejected complaints under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7 as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, in Năstase v. Romania ((dec.), no. 80563/12, §§ 105-09, 18 November 2014), it rejected as manifestly ill-founded a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Article 6. By contrast, in Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 11082/06, § 16, 8 November 2011) and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 13772/05, §§ 310-14, 27 May 2010), the Court declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 and subsequently, having examined the merits of those complaints in its judgment in Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (cited above, §§ 897-909), found no violation of Article 18 of the Convention. - EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 47072/15
PRODUKCIJA PLUS STORITVENO PODJETJE D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA
However, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 136, 23 February 2016).In addition, I personally find it striking that the domestic law does not expressly allow for the reopening of the proceedings in the present case, although this has been considered as the most appropriate form of redress on numerous occasions (see, for example, Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016).
In our view, the most appropriate form of redress in respect of Article 6 violations is the reopening of the proceedings, if requested by the applicant (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 136, 23 February 2016, and the separate opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque, joined by Judges Karakaş, Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska, Tsotsoria, Vehabović and Kūris, in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, 11 July 2017).
- EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 2170/24
Osman Kavala
En d'autres termes, les juridictions internes ont retenu une interprétation arbitraire et imprévisible du droit pénal, au détriment du requérant, rendant manifestement déraisonnable l'issue du procès (voir, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy et Ofitserov c. Russie, nos 46632/13 et 28671/14, § 115, 23 février 2016). - EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 14305/17
Selahattin Demirtas
Indeed, in Navalnyy v. Russia ([GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 171, 15 November 2018), the Court took into account the two sets of criminal proceedings contemporaneous to the criminal proceedings against the applicant in its assessment under Article 18 (regarding the general context of the case) by referring to previous judgments in which it had established the relevant facts and determined the legal questions raised in those two sets of proceedings (reference was made to Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, §§ 116-19, 23 February 2016, and to Navalnyye v. Russia, no. 101/15, §§ 83-84, 17 October 2017). - EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 919/15
ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Furthermore, the Court observes that the question whether Article 6 of the Convention contains any express or implied restrictions which may form the subject of the Court's examination under Article 18 of the Convention remains open (compare, for example, Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 129, 23 February 2016, where, in the circumstances relevant to that case, it rejected as incompatible ratione materiae a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7; Năstase v. Romania (dec.), no. 80563/12, §§ 105-09, 18 November 2014, where it rejected as manifestly ill-founded a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Article 6; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 11082/06, § 16, 8 November 2011, and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 13772/05, §§ 310-14, 27 May 2010, where it declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 and subsequently, having examined the merits of those complaints in the judgment of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos.46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016.
- EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12
RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
- EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 63703/19
MUCHA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21
WA?ĘSA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 33399/18
PISKIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 30226/10
ALI RIZA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07
Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"
- EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14
Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny
- EuGH, 05.09.2019 - C-377/18
AH u.a. (Unschuldsvermutung) - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …
- EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 23199/17
Türkische Journalisten aufgrund von Spekulationen festgenommen
- EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 36418/20
Russland hat zu Nawalny nicht hinreichend ermittelt
- EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 17389/20
YASAK v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 47186/21
GOR? E v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 58997/18
NIKEHASANI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08
NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14
JANUSKEVICIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 3598/10
KISLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 49588/12
TESLENKO v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
- EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06
KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 25406/08
TOPALOGLU v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 25.09.2025 - 11500/23
IOSIF v. CYPRUS
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.06.2019 - C-377/18
AH u.a. (Unschuldsvermutung) - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …
- EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 56795/13
BAURAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 29714/18
PIRTSKHALAVA AND TSAADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 45779/18
DEMIRER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 28359/08
INAL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 10216/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 25555/10
[ENG]
- EGMR - 2834/21 (anhängig)
JANKULOSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 57333/14
BELTSIOS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 14630/12
DOMINKA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR - 55589/17 (anhängig)
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 10690/18 (anhängig)
POPOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 32963/16
NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".