Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MENCHINSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 33804/96

  MENNITTO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 42454/02

  Furthermore, it cannot be disputed that this pecuniary "right" was the subject of a "dispute" before the domestic courts (see Mennitto v. Italy [GC], no. 33804/96, §§ 23 et seq., ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 55066/00

  RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 42454/02

  To address this issue the Court will use the opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law or "Venice Commission" (see paragraph 21) as it did in a number of judgments (see, among other authorities, Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, §§ 70-73, ECHR 2007-...; Basque Nationalist Party - Iparralde Regional Organisation v. France, no. 71251/01, §§ 45-52, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-...; and ÇiloÄ?lu and Others v. Turkey, no. 73333/01, § 17, 6 March 2007).
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 73333/01

  ÇILOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 42454/02

  To address this issue the Court will use the opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law or "Venice Commission" (see paragraph 21) as it did in a number of judgments (see, among other authorities, Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, §§ 70-73, ECHR 2007-...; Basque Nationalist Party - Iparralde Regional Organisation v. France, no. 71251/01, §§ 45-52, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-...; and ÇiloÄ?lu and Others v. Turkey, no. 73333/01, § 17, 6 March 2007).

 
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 71251/01

  PARTI NATIONALISTE BASQUE - ORGANISATION REGIONALE D'IPARRALDE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 42454/02

  To address this issue the Court will use the opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law or "Venice Commission" (see paragraph 21) as it did in a number of judgments (see, among other authorities, Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia, nos. 55066/00 and 55638/00, §§ 70-73, ECHR 2007-...; Basque Nationalist Party - Iparralde Regional Organisation v. France, no. 71251/01, §§ 45-52, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-...; and ÇiloÄ?lu and Others v. Turkey, no. 73333/01, § 17, 6 March 2007).
• EKMR, 21.10.1996 - 22377/93

  T.M. c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 42454/02

  The Court further observes that the unemployment allowances at issue were individual and pecuniary in nature and were aimed at compensating for loss of means of subsistence resulting from unemployment (see T.M. v. Finland (dec.), no. 22377/93, 21 October 1996).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 42454/02

  In this context, the Court reiterates that while the independence and impartiality of the prosecutor or similar officer were not open to criticism, the public's increased sensitivity to the fair administration of justice justified the growing importance attached to appearances (see Borgers v. Belgium, 30 October 1991, § 24, Series A no. 214-B).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 42454/02

  Regarding the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that this provision is applicable in the field of social insurance, including welfare assistance (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 46, Series A no. 263, and Salesi v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 19).

• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  En outre, il est essentiel que le rôle que jouent les procureurs dans la protection des droits de l'homme ne donne lieu à aucun conflit d'intérêts (Mentchinskaïa c. Russie, no 42454/02, §§ 19 et 38, 15 janvier 2009).
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  KRAMAREVA v. RUSSIA

  In Menchinskaya v. Russia (no. 42454/02, § 39, 15 January 2009) the Court, referring to the above-mentioned recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly and the opinion of the Venice Commission (see paragraphs 20 and 22 above), concluded that the prosecutor's intervention in the appeal proceedings undermined the principle of equality of arms, particularly owing to the fact that only the prosecutor, but not the parties, had submitted arguments orally before the appeal court.

  In addition, the Court, though referring to the relevant recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly and the opinion of the Venice Commission, as well as to the relevant judgment, namely Menchinskaya v. Russia (no. 42454/02, § 39, 15 January 2009), which endorsed those instruments and concluded that the prosecutor's intervention in appeal proceedings had undermined the principle of equality of arms (see paragraphs 20, 21 and 36-37 of the judgment), nevertheless ultimately overlooked them.

• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 3932/02

  BATSANINA v. RUSSIA

  Même si l'Institut d'océanologie et M. M étaient tous deux représentés à la procédure, la Cour considère que le ministère public a agi dans l'intérêt général en intentant une action contre la requérante et son mari (comparer Mentchinskaïa c. Russie, no 42454/02, §§ 37-40, 15 janvier 2009).

  Je considère cependant qu'elle doit se limiter à des cas exceptionnels et n'être utilisée qu'aux fins de la protection des droits de personnes vulnérables (enfants, personnes handicapées, etc.) qui ne sont pas en mesure de protéger elles-mêmes leurs intérêts, lorsque l'infraction cause du tort à un grand nombre de personnes, ou encore lorsqu'il est gravement porté atteinte à des intérêts de l'Etat qui ne peuvent être protégés autrement (Mentchinskaïa c. Russie, no 42454/02, § 35, 15 janvier 2009).

• EGMR, 21.10.2021 - 12064/08

  MUKIY v. UKRAINE

  The relevant general principles were summarised in Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, §§ 65 and 74, ECHR 2001-VI; Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 146, 19 September 2017; Todorov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39832/98, 14 March 2002; Yvon v. France, no. 44962/98, § 32, ECHR 2003-V; F.W. v. France, no. 61517/00, § 27, 31 March 2005; Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 59, ECHR 2005-V; Menchinskaya v. Russia, no. 42454/02, § 35, 15 January 2009; Batsanina v. Russia, no. 3932/02, § 27, 26 May 2009; and Korolev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 5447/03, § 34, 1 April 2010, with further references.
• EGMR - 868/15 (anhängig)

  M.G. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the involvement of a public prosecutor in these proceedings (see Batsanina v. Russia, no. 3932/02, § 27, 26 May 2009; Korolev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 5447/03, § 33, 1 April 2010; and Menchinskaya v. Russia, no. 42454/02, 15 January 2009)?.