Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ASHENDON AND JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 6-2 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ashendon and Jones v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EKMR, 24.10.1995 - 22401/93

  D. F. v. UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 35730/07

  The first applicant also submitted that his conduct was different to the conduct considered by the Court in D.F. v. the United Kingdom, no. 22401/93, Commission decision of 24 October 1995; and Fashanu v. the United Kingdom, no. 38440/97, Commission decision of 1 July 1998 (both unreported).

  In such circumstances, the question is whether the trial judge relied on suspicions as to the applicant's innocence after the applicant had been acquitted (ibid., § 30; see also Moody v. the United Kingdom, no. 22613/93, Commission's report of 16 October 1996, unpublished, and D.F. v. the United Kingdom, no. 22401/93, Commission decision of 24 October 1995, unreported, which both concerned Practice Directions on the making of defendants" costs orders).

• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 35730/07

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards that person as guilty (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X, and A.L. v. Germany, no. 72758/01, § 31, 28 April 2005).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 35730/07

  The provision applies even where the substantive criminal proceedings have ended, provided that there is a sufficient nexus between the criminal proceedings and the events in issue (see Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 22, Series A no. 266-A).

 
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 15346/89

  MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 35730/07

  Further, the Convention does not guarantee a defendant who has been acquitted the right to reimbursement of his costs (see Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A).".
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 72758/01

  Unschuldsvermutung (Entschädigungsansprüche; konkludente Schuldfeststellung bei …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 35730/07

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning to suggest that the official regards that person as guilty (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-X, and A.L. v. Germany, no. 72758/01, § 31, 28 April 2005).
• EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 8866/04

  YASSAR HUSSAIN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 35730/07

  The issue was not whether a defendant's costs order should have been made in each case but whether, in refusing the applications for defendants" costs orders, the trial judge in each case had relied on suspicions as to the applicant's innocence after each applicant had been acquitted (Yassar Hussain v. the United Kingdom, no. 8866/04, § 19, ECHR 2006-III).
• EKMR, 11.01.1995 - 22613/93

  MOODY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 35730/07

  In such circumstances, the question is whether the trial judge relied on suspicions as to the applicant's innocence after the applicant had been acquitted (ibid., § 30; see also Moody v. the United Kingdom, no. 22613/93, Commission's report of 16 October 1996, unpublished, and D.F. v. the United Kingdom, no. 22401/93, Commission decision of 24 October 1995, unreported, which both concerned Practice Directions on the making of defendants" costs orders).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 42180/19

  JAKUTAVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  35730/07 and 4285/08, § 49, 15 December 2011; and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 98 (c), ECHR 2013; see also the Government's submissions in paragraph 67 below).

  35730/07 and 4285/08, § 49, 15 December 2011; and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, § 98 (c), ECHR 2013).

• EuG, 09.09.2016 - T-557/15

  De Esteban Alonso / Kommission

  En matière plus spécifique de remboursement des frais de justice, la Cour EDH apprécierait si l'autorité administrative ou le juge a motivé sa décision de telle manière qu'il ou elle semble douter de l'innocence de l'intéressé alors que celui-ci a été acquitté (Cour EDH, 15 décembre 2011, Ashendon et Jones c. Royaume-Uni, CE:ECHR:2011:0913JUD003573007 , § 42).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 8045/10

  MOSINIAN c. GRÈCE

  Lorsqu'elle s'est prononcée sur ces affaires, la Cour s'est fondée sur certains principes dont les plus pertinents peuvent se résumer ainsi: d'une part, la tâche de la Cour consiste à déterminer si les motifs par lesquels le juge compétent refuse d'ordonner le remboursement sont fondés sur une suspicion quant à l'innocence du requérant acquitté ; d'autre part, le refus d'ordonner le remboursement n'est pas incompatible avec la présomption d'innocence lorsque le juge compétent considère que le requérant a contribué à faire naître une suspicion contre lui et à faire croire aux autorités de poursuite que les éléments à charge étaient plus forts qu'il ne l'étaient en réalité, si par exemple le requérant a fait usage de son droit au silence (Ashendon et Jones c. Royaume-Uni, no 35730/07 et no 4285/08, § 49, 13 septembre 2011 et la jurisprudence indiquée dans cet arrêt).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 59588/12

  BÉRES AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  I am no particular fan of the case-law that has spawned around Article 6 § 2 following on from Minelli v. Switzerland (25 March 1983, Series A no. 62), as one can immediately gather from even a cursory examination of my separate opinions in Ashendon and Jones v. the United Kingdom (nos. 35730/07 and 4285/08, 15 December 2011), Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013), and Müller v. Germany (no. 54963/08, 27 March 2014).