Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARPYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  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 - Obtain attendance of witnesses);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts, and as a general rule it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

  JERSILD v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no "democratic society" (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24, and Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 298).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 59745/00

  GÜNDÜZ contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  In Gündüz v. Turkey (no. 59745/00, ECHR 2003-XI (extracts)) the Court examined under Article 10 the complaint of a radical Islamist who was convicted to two years" imprisonment for publishing statements which were interpreted as calling for deadly violence against an easily identifiable individual.
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  That notion does not cover a demonstration where the organisers and participants have violent intentions (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX, and Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 101, 15 November 2007).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

  DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively (see Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, § 56, ECHR 2003-III, and Barraco v. France, cited above, § 41).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  That notion does not cover a demonstration where the organisers and participants have violent intentions (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX, and Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 101, 15 November 2007).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  The Court also notes that in assessing the fairness of proceedings it must consider them as a whole, including the decision of the appellate court (see, for example, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  Accordingly, 16 May 2003 is the date from which the six-month period ran in respect of this complaint (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 87, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, 25 September 1992, § 29, Series A no. 237-B).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 56896/17

  LAURIJSEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Turning to the question of whether any violent intentions or actions on the part of the participants, including the applicants, could be inferred from the remaining factors adduced by the Government (see paragraph 43 above), the Court reiterates that in several cases it has recognised that Article 11 offers protection to ostensibly peaceful protesters who have taken part in assemblies which were tarnished by violence on the part of other protesters (see, for example, Karpyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 30582/04 and 32152/04, §§ 207-08 and 211, 6 October 2015; Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, no. 23086/08, §§ 233-35, 20 September 2018; and Laguna Guzman v. Spain, no. 41462/17, § 35, 6 October 2020; all with further references).
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10

  ÇIÇEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  La Cour rappelle que le simple fait que des actes de violence se produisent au cours d'un rassemblement ne saurait, à lui seul, suffire à faire conclure que les organisateurs du rassemblement avaient des intentions violentes (voir Karpyuk et autres c. Ukraine, nos 30582/04 et 32152/04, § 202, 6 octobre 2015).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06

  SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In cases involving complaints under Article 11 of the Convention the Court acknowledged locus standi of the applicants" close relatives wishing to pursue the proceedings before it instead of the deceased applicants (see Szerdahelyi v. Hungary, no. 30385/07, §§ 19-22, 17 January 2012; Karpyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 30582/04 and 32152/04, § 90, 6 October 2015; Tuskia and Others v. Georgia, no. 14237/07, §§ 48-50, 11 October 2018; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 50271/06 and 8 Others, §§ 8-11, 2 July 2019; and Dubrovina and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 31333/07, §§ 21-24, 25 February 2020).
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 36600/09

  RADZEVIL v. UKRAINE

  It has not been disputed in the present case that Mrs Radzevil, the applicant's wife and legal heir (see paragraph 4 above), is entitled to pursue the application on the applicant's behalf, and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, for example, Karpyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 30582/04 and 32152/04, § 90, 6 October 2015).
• EGMR - 32152/04

  [ENG]

  The proceedings in the first-instance court lasted from 2 October 2001 to 25 December 2002 (they are described in more detail with respect to each of the applicants in applications nos. 7188/02 and 30582/04).