Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONSTAS c. GRECE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-2 Violation de l'art. 6-2 Violation de l'art. 13 Partiellement irrecevable Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONSTAS v. GREECE [Extracts]

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-2 Violation of Art. 6-2 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07
• EGMR, 09.11.2016 - 53466/07

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07

  The Court reiterates that the rule concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 (with which it has a close affinity), that there is an effective domestic remedy available, in practice and in law, in respect of the alleged violation (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Hassan and Chaoush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07

  As it has already stated, this principle is a specific application of the general principle stated in paragraph 1 of that Article (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07

  The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires applicants - using the legal remedies available in domestic law in so far as they are effective and adequate - to afford the Contracting States the possibility of putting right the violations alleged against them before bringing the matter before the Court (see, among other authorities, Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07

  The Court reiterates that the rule concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 (with which it has a close affinity), that there is an effective domestic remedy available, in practice and in law, in respect of the alleged violation (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Hassan and Chaoush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07

  The Court reiterates that the principle of the presumption of innocence is above all a procedural safeguard, and one of the elements of a fair criminal trial required by Article 6 de the Convention (see, in this regard, Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04, 10 May 2005, and, more generally, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07

  However, whether or not a public official's remarks breach the principle of the presumption of innocence must be examined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the offending remarks were made (see, among other authorities, Adolf v. Austria, 26 March 1982, §§ 36-41, Series A no. 49).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07

  The Court also points out that the presumption of innocence may be infringed not only by a judge or court but also by other public authorities (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-42, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 40523/08

  AFFAIRES PESA ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 53466/07

  Nonetheless, such reference should be made with all the discretion and restraint which respect for the presumption of innocence demands (see Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 139, 8 April 2010).

• BGH, 07.09.2016 - 1 StR 154/16

  Verstoß gegen die Unschuldsvermutung (Voraussetzungen: erforderliche …

  Die Unschuldsvermutung ist eines der Merkmale eines fairen Verfahrens im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK (…EGMR, Urteile vom 10. Februar 1995 - 15175/89, "Allenet de Ribemont ./. France' Rn. 35; vom 24. Mai 2011 - 53466/07, "Konstas ./. Greece' Rn. 29;… vom 27. März 2014 - 54963/08, "M. ./. Deutschland' Rn. 46).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.05.2022 - C-883/19

  HSBC Holdings u.a./ Kommission

  76 Vgl. EGMR, 28. Oktober 2004, Y.B. u. a./Türkei (CE:ECHR:2004:1028JUD004817399, § 44), und 24. Mai 2011, Konstas/Griechenland (CE:ECHR:2011:0524JUD005346607, § 33).