Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK; Art. 1 Zusatzprotokoll Nr. 1 zur EMRK; Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 14 GG; § 1967 BGB
  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche Schuldunterstellungen; Verletzung der Eigentumsfreiheit durch zivilrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit der Erben eines verstorbenen Angeklagten (Haftung des Erben nach Straftaten des Erblassers; ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VULAKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-2 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vulakh and Others v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

  GRIDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03

  ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).

• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008; Neš?ák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 71, 6 February 2007; Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 22, ECHR 2005"I; Böhmer v. Germany, no.  37568/97, § 54, 3 October 2002; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  46.  The Court observes at the outset that, by contrast with the situation obtaining in certain previous cases (see, for instance, Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia, no. 16903/03, 1 April 2010; Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, § 52, ECHR 2001-VII; and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281"A), the present case does not contain any facts or evidence which could lead the Court to conclude that it concerned confiscation of money or assets obtained through illegal activities or paid for with the proceeds of crime.
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court reiterates that the provision of a judicial forum does not automatically engage the State's responsibility under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nevertheless, the State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if the court decisions were not given in accordance with domestic law or if they were flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among others, Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX, and Breierova and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 57321/00, 8 October 2002).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008; Neš?ák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 71, 6 February 2007; Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 22, ECHR 2005"I; Böhmer v. Germany, no.  37568/97, § 54, 3 October 2002; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008; Neš?ák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 71, 6 February 2007; Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 22, ECHR 2005"I; Böhmer v. Germany, no.  37568/97, § 54, 3 October 2002; and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Y c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  The Court underlines that there can be no justification for a court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind (see the above-cited case-law, and also Ka?mierczak v. Poland, no. 4317/04, § 54, 10 March 2009; Wojciechowski v. Poland, no. 5422/04, § 54, 9 December 2008; Del Latte v. the Netherlands, no. 44760/98, § 31, 9 November 2004; and, as regards subsequent civil proceedings, Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 46, ECHR 2003"II (extracts), and Baars v. the Netherlands, no. 44320/98, § 63, 28 October 2003).
• EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA ET MOISEYEVA CONTRE LA RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 289/04

  POPOVICI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.10.2003 - 44320/98

  Unschuldsvermutung: Schutz vor (Kosten-)Entscheidungen, welche den Angeklagten …
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 44760/98

  DEL LATTE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4317/04

  KAZMIERCZAK v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 24247/15

  Prozess gegen KZ-Wächter Demjanjuk: Wie unschuldig in den Tod?

  In line with its well-established case-law, it considers that they may, as his close relatives and heirs, have a legitimate material interest in the reimbursement of the costs and expenses for his defence in the criminal proceedings against him as well as a non-pecuniary interest, on behalf of themselves and of the family, in having their late relative exonerated from any finding of guilt (see Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, §§ 26-28, 10 January 2012; Nölkenbockhoff, cited above, § 33).
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 76607/13

  BIKAS v. GERMANY

  Aus den Begründungen einer Reihe von Urteilen des Gerichtshofs ergibt sich, dass die Anwendbarkeit der Unschuldsvermutung mit einer rechtskräftigen Verurteilung endet (…siehe u. a. Konstas, a. a. O., Rdnrn. 35 bis 36, im Hinblick auf ein Rechtsmittelverfahren; Vulakh u. a../. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33468/03, Rdnr. 36, 10. Januar 2012;… und C., a. a. O., Rdnr. 59).
• EGMR, 11.06.2024 - 32483/19

  NEALON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 1 other application

  (e) the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr, cited above, §§ 47-49; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; and Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012);.

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 73911/16

  LARRAÑAGA ARANDO v. SPAIN and 5 other applications

  In line with its well-established case-law, the Court considers that the applicants may have a non-pecuniary interest in having their late relatives exonerated from any finding of guilt, as well as a pecuniary interest in their capacity as claimants of a right to compensation for their death under the Spanish legislation (see, mutatis mutandis, Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 33, Series A no. 123, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, §§ 26-28, 10 January 2012, and Demjanjuk v. Germany, no. 24247/15, § 22, 24 January 2019).

  73911/16 and 5155/17 do not appear to have been subject to any formal criminal investigation in Spain prior to their death in 1979 (see, conversely, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, §§ 6-8 and 33, 10 January 2012).

• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 24265/17

  PASCUAL GONZALEZ v. SPAIN

  In line with its well-established case-law, the Court considers that the applicant may have a non-pecuniary interest in having her late husband exonerated from any finding of guilt, as well as a pecuniary interest in her capacity as claimant of a right to compensation for his death under the Spanish legislation (see, mutatis mutandis, Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 33, Series A no. 123, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, §§ 26-28, 10 January 2012, and Demjanjuk v. Germany, no. 24247/15, § 22, 24 January 2019).

  The Court therefore assumes that the criminal proceedings against the applicant' late husband were discontinued as a result of his death (compare Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, §§ 8 and 33, 10 January 2012, and Demjanjuk v. Germany, no. 24247/15, § 9, 24 January 2019).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

  SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court further reiterates that the scope of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is not limited to pending criminal proceedings but extends to judicial decisions taken after a prosecution has been discontinued (see, most recently, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 33, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In particular, the mere fact that the State, through its judicial system, provided a forum for the determination of such a private-law dispute does not give rise to an interference by the State with property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Kuchař and Štis v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 37527/97, 21 October 1998).The State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if court decisions are not given in accordance with domestic law or if they are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 39544/05

  ZAGREBACKA BANKA D.D. v. CROATIA

  The State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if court decisions are not given in accordance with domestic law or if they are flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  FARZALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court has previously held that Article 6 § 2 was applicable to subsequent "linked" proceedings in cases where the preceding criminal investigations had been discontinued without suspects having been formally charged under domestic law and brought to trial, having found that, within the autonomous meaning of that provision, those applicants were considered to have been "charged with a criminal offence" in the discontinued proceedings (see, for example, Vanjak v. Croatia, no. 29889/04, §§ 12-15, 36 and 41, 14 January 2010, where criminal proceedings against a suspect were discontinued owing to insufficient evidence that he had committed a criminal offence, and Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, §§ 6-8 and 33, 10 January 2012, where criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants' relative as one of the suspects but discontinued before he could be charged as a result of his committing suicide when he had learned about the arrests of two other suspects).
• EGMR, 27.11.2025 - 43050/22

  VUJOVIC AND LIPA DOO v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court reiterates that the provision of a judicial forum does not automatically engage the State's responsibility under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nevertheless, the State may be held responsible for losses caused by such determinations if the court decisions were not given in accordance with domestic law or if they were flawed by arbitrariness or manifest unreasonableness contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 44, 10 January 2012, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 15.05.2025 - 30085/13

  SEKSIMP GROUP SRL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54490/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.06.2026 - 30085/13
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 25601/12

  KHIZANISHVILI AND KANDELAKI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 75529/16

  MARTÍNEZ AGIRRE AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 13.05.2025 - 12432/22

  RADELIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 72783/11

  THEO NATIONAL CONSTRUCT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 29385/11

  EKA MIKELADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 27879/13

  BOKOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 6169/13

  MINDEK v. CROATIA
• EGMR - 25112/07

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 54839/17

  MADZAROVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO and 1 other application
• EGMR, 25.09.2025 - 11500/23

  IOSIF v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 57273/13

  NURMIYEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 231/15

  KOZEMIAKINA c. LITUANIE
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 15706/08

  KAISER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 22775/07

  SNEGUR c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 2223/14

  RUZHNIKOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 57676/11

  PETKEVICIUTÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 28046/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 29226/18 (anhängig)

  PASTUKHOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 77590/17 (anhängig)

  Î.C.S. MOLDOVA ZAHAR S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR - 20191/18 (anhängig)

  TEREKHINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 25080/20

  GEORGOPOULOU-MOUSLI c. GRÈCE