Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• zeit.de (Pressebericht, 23.02.2016)

  Urteil gegen Kreml-Gegner Alexej Nawalny gerügt

In Nachschlagewerken

• Wikipedia
  +3

  Weitere Entscheidungen mit demselben Bezug

  EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

  EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  (Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NAVALNYY (VII) v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 18 MRK
  [ENG]

• spiegel.de (Meldung mit Bezug zur Entscheidung, 16.11.2016)

  Kreml-Kritiker: Oberster Gerichtshof hebt Urteil gegen Nawalny auf

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  11082/06 and 13772/05, § 743, 25 July 2013; and Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, §§ 42-43, 27 February 2014).

  11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013; Cebotari v. Moldova, no. 35615/06, 13 November 2007; Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV; and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013.

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  [11]11. Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 64, Series A no. 24.
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11

  Julija Tymoschenko

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  11082/06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013; Cebotari v. Moldova, no. 35615/06, 13 November 2007; Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV; and Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no. 49872/11, 30 April 2013.

 
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  [14]14. Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, §§ 54 and 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 72, Reports 1996-II; Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 49, Series A no. 35; Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, § 67, ECHR 2009 (extracts); and Guérin v. France, 29 July 1998, § 37, Reports 1998-V.
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 17103/10

  Verletzung des Grundsatzes der Unschuldsvermutung gegenüber einem türkischen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  11082/06 and 13772/05, § 743, 25 July 2013; and Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, §§ 42-43, 27 February 2014).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  As regards the use in evidence of statements obtained at the police inquiry and judicial investigation stages, it is not in itself inconsistent with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, provided that the rights of the defence have been respected (see Saïdi v. France, 20 September 1993, § 43, Series A no. 261-C, and A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9043/05

  NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  To be effective for Convention purposes, therefore, any waiver of procedural rights must always be established in an unequivocal manner, must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance and must not run counter to any important public interest (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 135, 17 September 2009, and Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia, no. 9043/05, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2014 (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  The Convention does not prohibit presumptions of fact or of law in criminal cases, but it requires States "to confine them within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence" (see Salabiaku v. France, 7 October 1988, § 28, Series A no. 141-A, and Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, § 24, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  BERHANI v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  That said, decisions that are "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable" may be found to be incompatible with the guarantees of a fair hearing (see Khamidov, cited above, § 107; Berhani v. Albania, no. 847/05, §§ 50-56, 27 May 2010; Ajdaric v. Croatia, no. 20883/09, §§ 47-52, 13 December 2011; and AnÄ‘elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, §§ 26-29, 9 April 2013).

• EuG, 02.02.2022 - T-799/17

  Das Gericht weist die Klage von Scania ab und bestätigt die von der Kommission …

  Zudem hat der EGMR betont, dass die Begründung der Gerichtsentscheidungen in einer Art und Weise zu formulieren ist, die eine mögliche vorzeitige Beurteilung der Schuld der betroffenen Dritten vermeidet, die die faire Prüfung der gegen sie in einem gesonderten Verfahren erhobenen Vorwürfe gefährden könnte (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 27. Februar 2014, Karaman/Deutschland, CE:ECHR:0227JUD001710310, §§ 64 und 65, und EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Navalnyy und Ofitserov/Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD004663213" § 99).

  Ein Schuldanerkenntnis der am Vergleichsverfahren beteiligten Kartellteilnehmer kann sich jedoch auf die Umstände bezüglich einer Beteiligung eines "anderen Unternehmens", im vorliegenden Fall Scania, auswirken, das der Mitwirkung an demselben Kartell verdächtigt wird (…vgl. in diesem Sinne Urteil vom 28. März 2019, Pometon/Kommission, T-433/16, EU:T:2019:201, Rn. 92; vgl. in diesem Sinne und entsprechend EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Navalnyy und Ofitserov/Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD004663213, § 103).

  Folglich muss die Kommission dafür Sorge tragen, dass die von den Vergleichsparteien zugegebenen Tatsachen nicht in Bezug auf eine nicht an diesem Verfahren teilnehmende Partei wie Scania akzeptiert werden, ohne dass im ordentlichen Verfahren eine vollständige und angemessene Prüfung anhand der von dieser Partei vorgetragenen Argumente und Beweise erfolgt (vgl. in diesem Sinne und entsprechend EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Navalnyy und Ofitserov/Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD004663213, §§ 103 bis 105, und vom 31. Oktober 2017, Bauras/Litauen, CE:ECHR:2017:1031JUD005679513, § 53).

• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

  In the same period, the first applicant ran an increasingly public anti-corruption campaign targeting high-ranking public officials (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 15, 23 February 2016).

  There are also two separate cases currently pending before the Grand Chamber in which applicants have brought complaints under Article 18: Merabishvili v. Georgia (no. 72508/13, 14 June 2016) and Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 4 April 2016).

  The present case can be distinguished from Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016), on which the judgment is based, since in that case there was no allegation similar to that raised in the present case and referred to in paragraph 4 above.

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

  TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA

  In the recent case of Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016) the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1. At the time of writing this opinion, that judgment is not yet in force, pending the examination of a request for referral to the Grand Chamber.

  46632/13 and 28671/14, § 117, 23 February 2016, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, § 173, ECHR 2016.

 
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WALESA v. POLAND

  46632/13 and 28671/14, § 129, 23 February 2016, where, in the circumstances relevant to that case, it rejected as incompatible ratione materiae a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7; Nastase v. Romania (dec.), no. 80563/12, §§ 105-09, 18 November 2014, where it rejected as manifestly ill-founded a complaint under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Article 6; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 11082/06, § 16, 8 November 2011, and Lebedev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 13772/05, §§ 310-14, 27 May 2010, where it declared admissible the applicants' complaints under Article 18 raised in conjunction with Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 and subsequently, having examined the merits of those complaints in the judgment of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 43734/14

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  In 2011-12 the applicant ran an increasingly public anti-corruption campaign targeting high-ranking public officials (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 15, 23 February 2016).
• EuGH, 05.09.2019 - C-377/18

  AH u.a. (Présomption d'innocence) - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  Zudem hat der EGMR betont, dass die Begründung der Gerichtsentscheidungen in einer Art und Weise zu formulieren ist, die eine mögliche vorzeitige Beurteilung der Schuld der betroffenen Dritten vermeidet, die die faire Prüfung der gegen sie in einem gesonderten Verfahren erhobenen Vorwürfe gefährden könnte (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 27. Februar 2014, Karaman/Deutschland, CE:ECHR:20140227JUD001710310, §§ 64 und 65; vgl. auch EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Navalnyy und Ofitserov/Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD004663213" § 99).
• EGMR - 78193/17 (anhängig)

  NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court's judgment in the case Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016).

  Having regard to the applicants" specific allegations in respect of the criminal proceedings conducted following the Court's judgment Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia (nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, 23 February 2016), did they receive a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention?.

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  It notes that the criminal charges against the applicant were based on the same facts as those in the proceedings against Mr Pichugin (see paragraph 28 above), and the facts established in the proceedings against Mr Pichugin and any legal findings made therein were directly relevant to the applicant's case (see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 103, 23 February 2016).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 57333/14

  BELTSIOS v. GREECE

  It was thus essential to have safeguards to ensure that the decisions taken in the proceedings against A.T. would not undermine the fairness of the subsequent proceedings against the applicant, especially that the latter had not been granted any status in these proceedings which would have allowed him to challenge the findings made therein (see Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, § 103, 23 February 2016).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 25406/08

  TOPALOGLU v. GEORGIA

  Thus, in the current case, no issue arose as to whether the principle of res judicata applied to facts admitted in a case to which the applicant was not a party (contrast Navalnyy and Ofitserov v. Russia, nos. 46632/13 and 28671/14, §§ 104-109, 23 February 2016).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 49588/12

  TESLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.06.2019 - C-377/18

  AH u.a. (Présomption d'innocence)
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 28359/08

  INAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 25555/10

  IGOR PASCARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 03.04.2018 - 14630/12

  DOMINKA v. SLOVAKIA