Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOVZHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-2 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Dovzhenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 36650/03
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 36650/03

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 36650/03

  It prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62) but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to consider the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X; and Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 36650/03

  It prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62) but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to consider the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X; and Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 36650/03

  The right to presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of a fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).

• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18

  RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA

  According to [the Court], therefore, in order for a remedy for an alleged violation of the presumption of innocence to be effective, an individual must be able to lodge a complaint in the context of the criminal proceedings against him or her [Shagin v. Ukraine, no. 20437/05, § 71, 10 December 2009, and Dovzhenko v. Ukraine, no. 36650/03, § 42, 12 January 2012].

  The Court previously held that allegations of a breach of the presumption of innocence were normally raised in the course of criminal proceedings against the applicant (see Shagin v. Ukraine, no. 20437/05, §§ 71-73, 10 December 2009; Panasyuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 19906/04, 23 August 2011; and Dovzhenko v. Ukraine, no. 36650/03, § 42, 12 January 2012) in order to give the criminal courts an opportunity to place the applicant, as far as possible, in the position he or she would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 91, 5 February 2013, and ? antare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, § 71, 31 March 2016).