Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Y c. NORVEGE [Extraits]

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-2 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Y v. NORWAY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-2 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  In certain instances, the Court has also found the provision applicable to judicial decisions taken after the discontinuation of such proceedings (see in particular the following judgments: Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, and Lutz, Englert and Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123), or following an acquittal (see the above-mentioned Sekanina, Rushiti and Lamanna judgments).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Moreover, the scope of Article 6 § 2 is not limited to criminal proceedings that are pending (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, § 35).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  The applicant invited the Court to assimilate his case to that of Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), in which it attached primary weight to the degree of linkage between the criminal proceedings and the compensation case in its finding that Article 6 § 2 was applicable to the latter.

• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  (e) the imposition of civil liability to pay compensation to the victim (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, ECHR 2003-II; Orr, cited above, §§ 47-49; Erkol v. Turkey, no. 50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia, no. 33468/03, § 32, 10 January 2012; Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, § 55, 7 February 2012; Lagardère v. France, no. 18851/07, §§ 73 and 76, 12 April 2012; and Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012);.
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 31283/04

  ORR v. NORWAY

  In this connection the applicant relied on the Court's judgment of 11 February 2003 in Y. v. Norway (no. 56568/00, ECHR 2003-II).

  The Court will examine the applicant's complaint in the light of the principles enunciated in its case-law (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II; and Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39 ECHR 2003-II (extracts) and its application of those principles in those cases (see respectively at paragraphs 37-42 and 40-47 of the said judgments).

  It referred especially to the guiding, as it called them, judgments of this Court in Y v. Norway, (no. 56568/00, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)) and Ringvold v. Norway, (no. 34964/97, ECHR 2003-II), both decided a year earlier, in which it was held that both the procedural and the evidentiary parts of the Norwegian system were not incompatible with Article 6 § 2.

• EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07

  LAGARDÈRE c. FRANCE

  In such cases it examines whether the compensation proceedings in the particular case gave rise to a "criminal charge" against the applicant and, in the event that this was not the case, whether the compensation case was nevertheless linked to the criminal trial in such a way as to fall within the scope of Article 6 § 2 (see Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 36, ECHR 2003-II, and Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 39, Reports 2003-II (extracts)).

  [2] See, inter alia, Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, § 30, Series A no. 266-A; Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, § 31, 21 March 2000; Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, §§ 39-47, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, §§ 33-41, ECHR 2003-II; and Orr v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-55, 15 May 2008.

 
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 35522/04

  VASSILIOS STAVROPOULOS c. GRECE

  Ainsi, tant le Conseil d'Etat que la cour administrative d'appel ont utilisé des termes qui outrepassaient le cadre administratif du litige et ne laissaient aucun doute sur l'intention supposée du requérant de ne pas inclure dans sa déclaration tous les biens immobiliers dont il disposait (voir aussi, Y c. Norvège, no 56568/00, § 46, CEDH 2003-II).

  Dans l'affaire Y c. Norvège (no 56568/00, CEDH 2003-II), dont l'arrêt a été adopté le même jour, la cour d'appel avait néanmoins déclaré qu'elle « estim[ait] (...) clairement probable que [le requérant] [avait] commis les infractions dirigées contre Mlle T. dont il [avait] été accusé... » (§ 44).

• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 27785/10

  MELO TADEU c. PORTUGAL

  Mais la Cour a déjà considéré, notamment dans des affaires concernant une procédure civile subséquente que si l'acquittement prononcé au pénal ne doit pas être remis en cause dans le cadre de la procédure en réparation, cela ne doit pas faire obstacle à l'établissement, sur la base d'exigences de preuve moins strictes, d'une responsabilité civile emportant obligation de verser une indemnité à raison des mêmes faits (voir par exemple Ringvold c. Norvège no 34964/97 § 36, CEDH 2003-II, Y c. Norvège, no 56568/00 § 39, CEDH 2003-II, Lundkvist c. Suède, (déc.) no 48518/99, CEDH 2003-XI ).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 2947/06

  ISMOILOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  En confirmant ces ordonnances d'extradition sans en modifier la formulation, les juges ont manqué à en rectifier les défauts (voir Minelli, précité, § 40, Hammern c. Norvège, no 30287/96, § 48, 11 février 2003, et Y c. Norvège, no 56568/00, § 45, CEDH 2003-II (extraits)).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …

  The Court underlines that there can be no justification for a court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind (see the above-cited case-law, and also Ka?mierczak v. Poland, no. 4317/04, § 54, 10 March 2009; Wojciechowski v. Poland, no. 5422/04, § 54, 9 December 2008; Del Latte v. the Netherlands, no. 44760/98, § 31, 9 November 2004; and, as regards subsequent civil proceedings, Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, § 46, ECHR 2003"II (extracts), and Baars v. the Netherlands, no. 44320/98, § 63, 28 October 2003).
• EGMR, 28.05.2020 - 29620/07

  FARZALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, if the national decision on compensation were to contain a statement imputing criminal liability to the respondent party, this would raise an issue falling within the ambit of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Allen, cited above, § 123; Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II; Y v. Norway, no. 56568/00, §§ 41-42, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); and Diacenco v. Romania, no. 124/04, §§ 59-60, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Article 6 § 2 may also be applicable where the criminal proceedings proper have terminated in an acquittal and other courts issue decisions voicing the continued existence of suspicion regarding the accused's innocence or otherwise casting doubt on the correctness of the acquittal (see, for example, Sekanina v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, § 30; Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, ECHR 2003-..., § 48, and O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, ECHR 2003-..., § 40 (concerning the acquitted accused's application for costs and compensation for pecuniary damage respectively); Y. v. Norway, no. 56568/00, ECHR 2003-..., § 46 (concerning proceedings brought by the alleged victim of the crime for compensation from the acquitted accused).
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 46878/06

  TEODOR c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour rappelle ensuite qu'elle a considéré, dans le contexte d'une action en indemnisation que, si l'acquittement prononcé au pénal ne doit pas être remis en cause dans le cadre de la procédure en réparation, cela ne doit pas faire obstacle à l'établissement, sur la base d'exigences de preuve moins strictes, d'une responsabilité civile emportant obligation de verser une indemnité à raison des mêmes faits (Y c. Norvège, no 56568/00, § 41 in fine, CEDH 2003-II (extraits)).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 29889/04

  VANJAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45028/07

  KEMAL COSKUN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27473/11

  N.A. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 48045/15

  BENGHEZAL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 44101/13

  ILIAS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 53561/09

  URAT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 231/15

  KOZEMIAKINA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  VELLA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 8045/10

  MOSINIAN c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO (No. 2)
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 34388/05

  CELIK (BOZKURT) v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 9143/08

  SIKIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 71563/01

  DIAMANTIDES (N° 2) c. GRECE
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 33379/10

  ENGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 43519/07

  MILOJEVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20286/08

  TEHANCIUC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 50172/06

  ERKOL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.09.2007 - 27521/04

  MOULLET v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 29327/95

  O. c. NORVEGE
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 44773/16

  MILACHIKJ v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 32216/15

  BONNEMAISON c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 65170/14

  A v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 15706/08

  KAISER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 45482/06

  BOK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 65182/10

  YILDIZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 61213/08

  MATOS DINIS c. PORTUGAL