Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

• 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, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

  KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  In this connection the Court notes that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 28525/95

  UNABHÄNGIGE INITIATIVE INFORMATIONSVIELFALT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  Where a statement amounts to a value judgment the proportionality of an interference may depend on whether there exists a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement, since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive (see, for example, Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt v. Austria, no. 28525/95, §§ 39-40, ECHR 2002-I; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 76, ECHR 2004-XI).

 
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 51279/99

  Frankreich wegen Verletzung der Pressefreiheit zu Schadensersatz verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  The Court further reiterates its finding (see paragraph 140 above) that in the ensuing proceedings the applicant was allowed to adduce evidence of the truth of his averment (see, by contrast, Colombani and Others v. France, no. 51279/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 20.03.2003 - 71750/01

  KRUTIL contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  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, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, 27 March 2007, § 59, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• 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, 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 CumpÇ?nÇ? and MazÇ?re v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, § 111, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 55120/00

  INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v. IRELAND

  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, 20.04.2006 - 47579/99

  RAICHINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  It should also be observed that the proceedings were instituted on the initiative of Mr M., not by a State authority (see, by contrast, Raichinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47579/99, § 50 in fine, 20 April 2006).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA
• EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 35125/97

  PANEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  GODDI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88

  T. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  F.C.B. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
• 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
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

  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, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA

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

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

  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, 18.11.2021 - 27801/12

  MARINONI c. ITALIE

  The Court has held that such an approach does not, as such, contravene the Convention (see 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. 2179/08, 21 January 2010), and has held a lack of effort to make out that defence against applicants (see Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, § 44, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 22385/03

  KASABOVA v. BULGARIA

  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, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA

  It has found violations of that Article on the grounds that domestic courts had extended applicants" detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae, without addressing applicants" specific situations or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

  YUGAY v. RUSSIA

  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 other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

  RODKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already examined a large number of 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 by 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 other examples, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; 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, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

  DZHASYBAYEVA 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 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; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08

  PLOTNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  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 other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09

  RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

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

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

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

  ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

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

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA