Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUTKEVICIUS c. LITUANIE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 5-1 Violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation de l'art. 6-2 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-2 Pecuniary damage - request rejected Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award ...

Besprechungen u.ä.

• zjs-online.com (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Die Unschuldsvermutung in der Rechtsprechung des EGMR (Johannes Barrot; ZJS 6/2010, 701)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 48297/99
• EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 48297/99

Wird zitiert von ... (37)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 48297/99

  Moreover, the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities (Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-42, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 48297/99

  The Court must moreover ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX).

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 17053/20

  BAVCAR v. SLOVENIA

  However, this circumstance could not justify any use of words chosen by the officials in their interviews with the press (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 50, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).

  Secondly, the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities, such as police officials (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 37 and 41, Series A no. 308), the President of the Republic (Pe?.a v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 149, 8 April 2010), the Prime Minister or Minister of the Interior (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 194-98, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), the President of the Parliament (Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-II (extracts), and by the Minister of Justice (Konstas v. Greece, no. 53466/07, §§ 43 and 45, 24 May 2011).

  Admittedly, the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or a court but also by other public authorities, such as police officials (Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 37 and 41, Series A no. 308), the President of the Republic (Pe?.a v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 149, 8 April 2010), the Prime Minister or Minister of the Interior (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 194-98, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), the Minister of Justice (Konstas v. Greece, no. 53466/07, §§ 43 and 45, 24 May 2011), the President of the Parliament (Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-II (extracts), a prosecutor (Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 42, ECHR 2000-X), and other prosecuting authorities (Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 96, 23 October 2008)[3].

• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE

  Par ailleurs, l'atteinte à la présomption d'innocence peut émaner non seulement d'un juge, mais également d'autres autorités publiques: le président du parlement (Butkevicius c. Lituanie, no 48297/99, §§ 49, 50, 53, CEDH 2002-II (extraits)), le procureur (voir l'arrêt Daktaras précité, § 44) ; le ministre de l'Intérieur ou les fonctionnaires de police (Allenet de Ribemont, précité, §§ 37 et 41).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  In the present case, the applicant complained about statements made by the President, the Minister of Health and members of the Seimas (see paragraphs 61, 67, 69 and 71-74 above) which he considered to be encouraging the public to believe him guilty before his guilt had been determined by a court (see, for a similar situation, Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-II (extracts), and, in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, Rinau v. Lithuania, no. 10926/09, §§ 210-11, 14 January 2020).

 
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 36921/07

  MIROSLAW GARLICKI v. POLAND

  Article 6 § 2 cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected (application no. 15175/89 [Allenet de Ribemont v. France]; see also the judgment of the ECHR of 26 March 2002, application no. 48297/99 [Butkevicius v. Lithuania]).

  It has also asserted the importance of respect for the presumption of innocence during press conferences by state officials or in their interviews with the press (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2002-II (extracts), which concerned statements to the press by the Prosecutor General and the Speaker of Parliament on criminal proceedings against a minister; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 127, 28 November 2002; and Y.B. and Others v. Turkey, nos.

• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 39712/16

  NADIR YILDIRIM AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  However, this circumstance could not justify a given use of words by the officials in their interviews with the press (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 50, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 03.05.2007 - C-62/06

  ZF Zefeser - Art. 3 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1697/79 des Rates - Nacherhebung von …

  54 - Das Urteil vom 26. März 2002, Butkevicius/Litauen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 48297/99, Randnrn.
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 2947/06

  ISMOILOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Cette interdiction vaut aussi pour les déclarations que font les autres agents de l'Etat au sujet des enquêtes pénales en cours et qui incitent le public à croire le suspect coupable et préjugent de l'appréciation des faits par l'autorité judiciaire compétente (voir l'arrêt Allenet de Ribemont, § 41, où le commissaire de police et un ministre ont fait à la presse des déclarations dans lesquelles ils affirmaient sans nuance que le requérant, arrêté le même jour, était complice d'un meurtre ; voir également Daktaras c. Lituanie, no 42095/98, §§ 41 à 43, CEDH 2000-X, et Butkevicius c. Lituanie, no 48297/99, § 49, CEDH 2002-II (extraits)).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 25551/18

  TADIC v. CROATIA

  If there is a virulent press campaign surrounding a trial, what is decisive is not the subjective apprehensions of the suspect concerning the absence of prejudice required of the trial courts, however understandable, but whether, given the particular circumstances of the case, his or her fears can be held to be objectively justified (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 48297/99, 28 November 2000, and G.C.P. v. Romania, no. 20899/03, § 46, 20 December 2011).
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 6091/06

  RYWIN c. POLOGNE

  L'atteinte à la présomption d'innocence peut émaner non seulement d'un juge, mais également d'autres autorités publiques: le chef de l'état (Pesa c. Croatie, no 40523/08, § 149, 8 avril 2000), le président du parlement (Butkevicius c. Lituanie, no 48297/99, §§ 49, 50, 53, CEDH 2002-II), le premier ministre (Gutsanovi c. Bulgarie, no 34529/10, §§ 194-196, CEDH 2013), le procureur (voir l'arrêt Daktaras, précité, § 44), le ministre de l'Intérieur ou les fonctionnaires de police (Allenet de Ribemont c. France, 10 février 1995, série A no 308, §§ 37 et 41) ainsi que le ministre de la Justice (Konstas c. Grèce, no 53466/07, § 16, 24 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 32130/03

  PETYO PETKOV c. BULGARIE

  Par ailleurs, l'atteinte à la présomption d'innocence peut émaner non seulement d'un juge, mais également d'autres autorités publiques: le président du parlement (Butkevicius c. Lituanie, no 48297/99, §§ 49, 50, 53, CEDH 2002-II (extraits)) ; le procureur (voir l'arrêt Daktaras précité, § 44) ; les fonctionnaires de police (Allenet de Ribemont c. France, 10 février 1995, § 37 et 41, série A no 308).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 37124/10

  TONI KOSTADINOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19

  MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 67482/14

  LEBOIS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  GARYCKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 39651/11

  POPOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55388/10

  STOYANOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 58478/00

  RUPA c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 73443/01

  FREIMANIS ET LIDUMS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 26198/13

  STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 13139/08

  STEFANELLI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 28834/08

  LIZASO AZCONOBIETA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 58939/00

  KOUZMIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 73481/01

  BOCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00

  KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 64846/01

  MOISEJEVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 58478/00

  RUPA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 70923/01

  JURJEVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 30336/10

  ALEXEY PETROV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 45773/10

  PETROV ET IVANOVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 15499/10

  BEGGS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 22475/05

  DOLGOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  SHULENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 58939/00

  KUZMIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 6569/04

  ARRIGO AND VELLA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 33556/07

  LINKEVICIENE AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 24625/05

  RATKIN v. RUSSIA