Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUREPKA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 4, A... rt. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  Violation of P7-2 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  However, in the light of its settled case-law, the Court has no doubt that, by virtue of the severity of the sanction, the present case was criminal in nature and the purported administrative offence was in fact of a criminal character attracting the full guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention and, consequently, those of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (Engel and others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, §§ 82-83; Öztürk v. Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, §§ 48-50; Escoubet v. Belgium judgment [GC], no. 26780/95, § 32, ECHR 1999-VII; Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

  ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  However, in the light of its settled case-law, the Court has no doubt that, by virtue of the severity of the sanction, the present case was criminal in nature and the purported administrative offence was in fact of a criminal character attracting the full guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention and, consequently, those of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (Engel and others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, §§ 82-83; Öztürk v. Germany, judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, §§ 48-50; Escoubet v. Belgium judgment [GC], no. 26780/95, § 32, ECHR 1999-VII; Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98

  KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  The Court also recalls that, to be effective, a remedy must be independent of any discretionary action by the authorities and must be directly available to those concerned (see Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).

 
• EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88

  RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  Nevertheless, should the impugned proceedings be characterised as "criminal" for Convention purposes (see Ravnsborg v. Sweden, judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B), the applicant's complaint can be examined under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7, which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  Furthermore, the domestic courts are best placed for assessing the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).
• EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 41921/98

  BRANDAO FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  Relying mutatis mutandis on the case of Brandão Ferreira v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 41921/98, ECHR 2000-X), they maintained that in the instant case the seven-day detention for an administrative offence, taking into account the fact that the maximum punishment could have been 15 days' detention, could not be considered to have been a criminal penalty.
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  However, any restrictions contained in domestic legislation on that right of review must, by analogy with the right of access to a court embodied in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, pursue a legitimate aim and not infringe the very essence of that right (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 96, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 61406/00

  Furthermore, the domestic courts are best placed for assessing the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).

• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 19750/13

  GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Sur l'applicabilité de l'article 6 sous son volet pénal 111. La Cour note que le requérant a également formulé un grief sur le terrain de l'article 2 du Protocole no 7 à la Convention (paragraphes 29, 52 et 54 ci-dessus), et que la notion d'« infraction pénale'employée au premier paragraphe de cet article correspond à celle d'« accusation en matière pénale'employée à l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Gurepka c. Ukraine, no 61406/00, § 55, 6 septembre 2005, Zaicevs c. Lettonie, no 65022/01, § 53, 31 juillet 2007, et Saquetti Iglesias, précité, § 22).
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 75845/12

  SIMSEK, ANDIÇ ET BOGATEKIN c. TURQUIE

  En effet, l'article 6 de la Convention, sous son volet pénal, tout comme l'article 13, ne consacre aucun droit à se pourvoir en appel ou à avoir accès à une juridiction de seconde instance (voir, par exemple, Nurhan Yilmaz c. Turquie (no 2), no 16741/04, § 21, 8 avril 2008, Kopczynski v. Pologne (déc.), no 28863/95, 1er juillet1998, Csepyová c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 67199/01, 14 mai 2002, Gurepka c. Ukraine, no 61406/00, § 51, 6 septembre 2005, et Dorado Baúlde c. Espagne (déc.), § 18, 1er septembre 2015).
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 28403/05

  VINTMAN v. UKRAINE

  In other words, for a remedy to be effective it must be independent of any action taken at the authorities" discretion and must be directly available to those concerned (see Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 59, 6 September 2005); able to prevent the alleged violation from taking place or continuing; or provide adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 5193/09

  X AND Y v. CROATIA

  Remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 50514/13

  SAQUETTI IGLESIAS c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour rappelle que la notion d"« infraction pénale'visée au paragraphe 1 de l'article 2 du Protocole no 7 correspond à celle d"« accusation en matière pénale'de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (Gourepka c. Ukraine, no 61406/00, § 55, 6 septembre 2005, et Zaicevs c. Lettonie, no 65022/01, § 53, 31 juillet 2007).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 45797/09

  ZAICHENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  It reiterates that for the remedy to be effective it must be independent of any action taken at the authorities" discretion directly available to those concerned (see Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 59, 6 September 2005); able to prevent the alleged violation from taking place or continuing; or provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 20390/07

  GARNAGA v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that for the remedy to be effective it must be independent of any action taken at the authorities" discretion directly available to those concerned (see Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 59, 6 September 2005); able to prevent the alleged violation from taking place or continuing; or provide adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 62123/09

  VAINIO v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56463/10

  KOLU v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)

  Furthermore, remedies the use of which depends on the discretionary powers of public officials and which are, as a consequence, not directly accessible to the applicant cannot be considered as effective remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 2 June 1999; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, § 60, 6 September 2005; and Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no. 7/08, § 122, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 31001/02

  KAMBUROV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 49201/06

  RIZI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16343/07

  METSAVEER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 2295/06

  CHAYKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 21164/20

  RUTAR AND RUTAR MARKETING D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 74022/01

  DJAVAKHADZE v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 58925/14

  VORONTSOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 54791/10

  POVESTCA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 8682/02

  STANCHEV c. BULGARIE