Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (61)Zitiert selbst (31)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 53984/00

  RADIO FRANCE ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  However, the admission and subsequent apology did not detract from the fact that the applicant's initial statements had been made known to a considerable number of individuals, including representatives of the mass media, their readers and employees of the Smolensk Regional Council (see, mutatis mutandis, Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, §§ 35 and 38 in fine, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  The Court also considers that the applicant, being initially represented by three lawyers of his own choosing, could have been advised by his lawyers of the consequences of his refusal to attend the trial hearings and to terminate representation contracts and could have been expected to appreciate that his failure to attend and to retain counsel would result in his being tried and convicted in his absence and in the absence of legal representation (see, by contrast, Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, 25 February 1992, § 38, Series A no. 227, and Jones, cited above).

• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  In this connection, the Court is unable to follow the applicant's argument that the very use of criminal-law sanctions in defamation cases is in violation of Article 10. In view of the margin of appreciation left to Contracting States by that provision, a criminal measure as a response to defamation cannot, as such, be considered disproportionate to the aim pursued (see Radio France and Others, cited above, § 40; and Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279/02 and 36448/02, § 59, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  Lastly, the Court must ensure itself that the penalty to which the applicant was subjected did not upset the balance between his freedom of expression and the need to protect Mr M.'s reputation (see CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 111, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  In view of the nature of that averment, that task was not unreasonable or impossible (see, by contrast, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, 25 June 1992, § 65 in fine, Series A no. 239).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  The trial court gave cogent reasons for its ruling on this point, in line with this Court's case-law that a criminal sentence for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 49, Series A no. 316-B; Krutil v. Germany (dec), no. 71750/01, 20 March 2003; Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland, no. 55120/00, § 110, 16 June 2005; and Steel and Morris, cited above, § 96).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  The Court observes that in this respect the present case differs from a number of cases in which violations of "fair trial" guarantees were found, in that the applicant decided of his own accord not to appear and not to be represented by counsel (see Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 26, Series A no. 76; Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 28, Series A no. 89; F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, §§ 30-33, Series A no. 208-B; T. v. Italy, 12 October 1992, § 27, Series A no. 245-C; Lala, cited above; and Pelladoah, cited above).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  The Court considers that these four periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy").
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  The Court reiterates that in the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; Poitrimol, cited above, § 35; and De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004), and the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

  KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86
• EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 28525/95
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69264/01

  DE LORENZO contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97

  GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  MISHKETKUL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00

  INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  RAICHINOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 71750/01

  KRUTIL contre l'ALLEMAGNE
• EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 35125/97

  PANEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EKMR, 13.12.1978 - 8098/77

  X. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016).
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Khudoyorov, cited above; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).

• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and using stereotypical formulae, without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016; and Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 138-40, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts' failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants' detention (see, among many others, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  [ENG]

  It recently reiterated that position, again with reference to criminal libel proceedings, in Makarenko v. Russia (no. 5962/03, § 156, 22 December 2009) and Rukaj v. Greece ((dec.), no. 2179/08, 21 January 2010).
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 52969/13

  WOJCZUK v. POLAND

  In case of assertion of facts, relying on the presumption of falsity and thus asking the author to demonstrate the truth of his or her assertions, as required under the applicable criminal provisions, does not necessarily contravene the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kasabova v. Bulgaria, no. 22385/03, §§ 58-60, 19 April 2011; Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, §§ 39 and 68, 14 February 2008; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, § 156, 22 December 2009; and Rukaj v. Greece (dec.), no. 179/08, 21 January 2010).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  5962/03.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.04.2012 - C-619/10

  Trade Agency - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 44/2001 - Anerkennung und Vollstreckung …

  {FN:28} - EGMR, Urteil Makarenko/Russland vom 22. Dezember 2009 (Beschwerde-Nr. 5962/03, § 135), in dem er entschied, dass ein Verfahrensbeteiligter auf die Teilnahme an der mündlichen Verhandlung verzichten kann.
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06

  MITYANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Taking note of the Government's acknowledgment, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as to the refusal to examine the first applicant's appeal against the court decision of 1 February 2006 rejecting his application for release (see, in the same vein, Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, §§ 122-25, 22 December 2009; Chuprikov v. Russia, no. 17504/07, §§ 82-87, 12 June 2014; and Manerov v. Russia, no. 49848/10, §§ 35-38, 5 January 2016).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 42147/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

  SHALYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10

  SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 64659/11

  MAKRADULI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" and 1 other application
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 45392/11

  PUSHCHELENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17504/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  PROSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8026/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 7000/17

  DANILENKO c. RUSSIE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 27728/08

  BYKOVTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 34180/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 6277/06

  LYUBUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51389/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

  GORBATENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 41472/06

  CHERNOYVAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 8681/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 49848/10

  MANEROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2021 - 20422/15

  STANISZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 72359/11

  MALO v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

  YUGAY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

  RODKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

  DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 7955/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 69863/13

  DAVLYASHOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09

  RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19857/09

  URMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

  MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 38911/07

  TUMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 676/09

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 7243/10

  YEVSTRATOV AND RUDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

  SHEPEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10

  ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 3243/06

  LOSEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 23748/11

  MELIKOV AND SARKISYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 42080/11

  ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 63392/09

  SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 25071/07

  DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 80015/12

  DEVTEROV v. RUSSIA