Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

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

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

• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  STOIMENOV v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  In the context of the principle of equality of arms, in the case of Stoimenov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 17995/02, §§ 40-42, 5 April 2007) the Court also referred to "appearances" when concluding that an opinion submitted by the Forensic Science Bureau, a State agency, was akin to incriminating evidence used by the prosecution and that the refusal of an alternative expert examination and the applicant's inability to challenge the Bureau's report in the circumstances of that case had resulted in a violation of the equality of arms (see also Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 65-67, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  With reference to the Court's judgment in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, in fine, ECHR 2007-IV), the Government considered that the applicant's complaint was incompatible ratione materiae.
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 34631/02

  ITSLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  The dispute must be genuine and serious; it may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope and the manner of its exercise; and, finally, the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question, mere tenuous connections or remote consequences not being sufficient to bring Article 6 § 1 into play (see, among others, Itslayev v. Russia, no. 34631/02, § 25, 9 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 34449/03

  SHULEPOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  In the context of the principle of equality of arms, in the case of Stoimenov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 17995/02, §§ 40-42, 5 April 2007) the Court also referred to "appearances" when concluding that an opinion submitted by the Forensic Science Bureau, a State agency, was akin to incriminating evidence used by the prosecution and that the refusal of an alternative expert examination and the applicant's inability to challenge the Bureau's report in the circumstances of that case had resulted in a violation of the equality of arms (see also Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 65-67, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  In this context, the Court reiterates that while the independence and impartiality of the prosecutor or similar officer may not be open to criticism, the public's increased sensitivity to the fair administration of justice justifies the growing importance attached to appearances (see Borgers v. Belgium, 30 October 1991, § 24, Series A no. 214-B).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  Lastly, the Court points out at the outset that its task is not to review the relevant domestic law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 24, Series A no. 257-B, and Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 45, Series A no. 154).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  Lastly, the Court points out at the outset that its task is not to review the relevant domestic law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to or affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of Article 6 § 1 (see, among other authorities, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 24, Series A no. 257-B, and Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 45, Series A no. 154).

• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 926/08

  KARELIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously considered that appearances may be of importance in court proceedings, for instance for assessing compliance with the requirement of objective impartiality, or for the sake of preserving the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public (see Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 77, ECHR 2007-IV; Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 31930/04, § 42, ECHR 2007-VIII; and Korolev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 5447/03, § 32, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 4418/18

  KRAMAREVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court's practice in cases against Russia 35. In cases against Russia, the Court, following the established general principles, has considered that the mere fact that a prosecutor participated in civil proceedings cannot as such give rise to an issue under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Chernysheva v. Russia (dec.), no. 77062/01, 10 June 2004) and that the fact that a similar point of view is defended before a court by several parties does not necessarily place the opposing party in a position of "substantial disadvantage" when presenting his or her case (see Korolev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 5447/03, § 30, 1 April 2010, and Batsanina v. Russia, no. 3932/02, § 25, 26 May 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, 14.09.2021 - 438/09

  MILITSA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that under the principle of equality of arms, as one of the features of the wider concept of a fair trial, each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis its opponent (see Korolev v. Russia (no. 2), no. 5447/03, § 29, 1 April 2010, and Yvon v. France, no. 44962/98, § 31, ECHR 2003-V).
• 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)?.