Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAHLER v. GERMANY

  Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 29045/95

  United Kingdom judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 31,.
• EKMR, 07.05.1982 - 8710/79

  X. Ltd. et Y. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 29045/95

  10.12.75, D.R. 3, p. 95; No. 8710/79, Dec.
• EKMR, 10.04.1997 - 30549/96

  MEISTER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 29045/95

  No. 30549/96, Meister v. Germany, Dec.
• EKMR, 15.04.1997 - 30339/96

  BOSSI v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 29045/95

  30339/96, Bossi v. Germany, Dec.
• EKMR, 10.12.1975 - 6683/74

  X. v. the UNITED-KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 29045/95

  6683/74, Dec.

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).

  Rn. 1 I am generally in agreement with the majority's finding that in this case the written submission made by the applicant - the lawyer "zealously" defending his client in criminal proceedings - was not purely insulting or sarcastic (contrast Mahler v. Germany, no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998), and Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 49910/06, 23 August 2011), but I respectfully dissented from the conclusion that the penalty imposed on the applicant constituted an unnecessary interference in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 51000/11

  RADOBULJAC v. CROATIA

  In particular, the applicant's remarks cannot be compared to those which the Court or the former Commission found amounted to personal insult (see, for example: Rodriguez Ravelo, cited above, where the applicant attributed blameworthy conduct to the district judge, such as wilfully deciding to distort reality, unhesitatingly lying or, further, issuing an untruthful report containing false and malicious information; 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; Saday v. Turkey, no. 32458/96, 30 March 2006, in which the accused described the Turkish judiciary as "torturers in robes"; Skałka, cited above, where a prisoner stated that "irresponsible clowns" had been placed in the Penitentiary Division of the court in question, and called the unidentified judge who had replied to his letter "[a] small-time cretin", "some fool", "a limited individual", and "[an] outstanding cretin"; Mahler v. Germany, no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, unreported, where counsel asserted that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication"; and W.R. v. Austria, no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997, unreported, in which counsel described the opinion of a judge as "ridiculous").
• EGMR, 25.02.2025 - 22266/22

  ZURABIANI v. GEORGIA

  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, 23.08.2011 - 49910/06

  KOVAC v. CROATIA

  The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise as the present case, where the applicant stated, inter alia, that Judge M. had been giving vent to her instincts and harassing her witnesses, can be compared with those in which the Convention organs found that the applicants" statements had been insulting (see, for example, Saday, cited above, in which the accused described the Turkish judiciary as "torturers in robes"; W.R. v. Austria, no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997, 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, where counsel had asserted that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication").
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 44998/98

  A. v. FINLAND

  The Court notes that the present case bears similarities with Meister v. Germany, where counsel had made insulting statements about judges and other persons whom he regarded as having decided or acted incorrectly in the context of, or in relation to, court proceedings (no. 25157/94 and no. 30549/96, Commission decisions of 18 October 1995 and 10 April 1997, respectively, unreported), with W.R. v. Austria, where counsel had described the opinion of a judge as "ridiculous" (no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997, unreported) and Mahler v. Germany, where counsel had stated at the trial that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication" (no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998, unreported).
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 31328/09

  LOPES c. PORTUGAL

  A cet égard, la Cour relève que les critiques dont le requérant a fait l'objet ne sauraient s'analyser en une insulte personnelle, étant donné qu'elles revêtaient un caractère procédural (W.R. c. Autriche, no 26602/95, décision de la Commission du 30 juin 1997, non publiée, où l'avocat avait qualifié l'avis d'un juge de « ridicule ", et Mahler c. Allemagne, no 29045/95, décision de la Commission du 14 janvier 1998, non publiée, où l'avocat avait affirmé que le procureur avait rédigé l'acte d'accusation « alors qu'il était totalement ivre ").
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 69582/13

  MARTIN v. HUNGARY

  The Court notes that the present case bears similarities with Meister v. Germany (nos. 25157/94 and 30549/96, Commission decisions of 18 October 1995 and 10 April 1997, respectively (unreported)), where a lawyer made insulting statements about judges and other persons whom he regarded as having decided or acted incorrectly in the context of, or in relation to, court proceedings; with W.R. v. Austria (no. 26602/95, Commission decision of 30 June 1997 (unreported)), where a lawyer described the opinion of a judge as "ridiculous"; with Mahler v. Germany (no. 29045/95, Commission decision of 14 January 1998 (unreported)), where a lawyer asserted that the prosecutor had drafted the bill of indictment "in a state of complete intoxication"; with A. v. Finland ((dec.), no. 44998/98, 8 January 2004), where the applicant was issued with a warning for his statements of a disparaging nature submitted in a written appeal concerning the presiding judge; with Saday v. Turkey (no. 32458/96, 30 March 2006), where the accused described the Turkish judiciary as "executioners dressed in gowns"; with Zugic v. Croatia (no. 3699/08, 31 May 2011), where the applicant's notice of appeal used a langue implying that the judge as a person was arrogant and incompetent to exercise the duty of a judge; and with Kincses v. Hungary, (no. 66232/10, 27 January 2015), where a lawyer's submissions amounted to belittling the sitting judge's professional capacities and implied that the court in question had circumvented the law.