Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VELLA v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vella v. Malta

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 12.07.2013 - 25424/09

  ALLEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  Referring to Allen v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25424/09, ECHR 2013), the Government noted that the second aspect of the protection of Article 6 § 2, namely that of proceedings following discontinuation of criminal proceedings or after an acquittal, required examination on a case-by-case basis.
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  In cases where the Court's judgment expressly referred to the failure to dispel the suspicion of criminal guilt, a violation of Article 6 § 2 was established (see, for example, Sekanina v. Austria, 25 August 1993, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 266-A, and Rushiti v. Austria, no. 28389/95, §§ 30-31, 21 March 2000).
• EGMR, 11.02.2003 - 56568/00

  Y c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, 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 v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; 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, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, 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 v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; 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, 19.06.2012 - 21534/05

  CONSTANTIN FLOREA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, 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 v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; 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, 08.07.2004 - 4248/02

  REEVES v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  In all cases, and no matter what the approach applied, the language used by the decision-maker will be of critical importance in assessing the compatibility of the decision and its reasoning with Article 6 § 2 (see, for example, Y. v. Norway, cited above, §§ 43-46; O. v. Norway, no. 29327/95, ECHR 2003-..., §§ 39-40; Hammern v. Norway, no. 30287/96, ECHR 2003-..., §§ 47-48; Baars v. the Netherlands, no. 44320/98, §§ 29-31, 28 October 2003; Panteleyenko v. Ukraine, no. 11901/02, § 70, 29 June 2006; Reeves v. Norway (dec.), no. 4248/02, 8 July 2004; and Konstas v. Greece, no. 53466/07, § 34, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 5908/12

  A.L.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  The Court's case-law provides some examples of instances where no violation of Article 6 § 2 has been found, even though the language used by the domestic authorities and courts was criticised (see Allen, cited above, § 126, and the case-law cited therein; A.L.F. v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 5908/12, 12 November 2013, § 24, and Adams v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 70601/11, 12 November 2013, § 41).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 70601/11

  ADAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69122/10

  The Court's case-law provides some examples of instances where no violation of Article 6 § 2 has been found, even though the language used by the domestic authorities and courts was criticised (see Allen, cited above, § 126, and the case-law cited therein; A.L.F. v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 5908/12, 12 November 2013, § 24, and Adams v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 70601/11, 12 November 2013, § 41).

• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 23349/17

  PASQUINI v. SAN MARINO (No. 2)

  The Court has in the past been called upon to consider the application of Article 6 § 2 to judicial decisions taken following the conclusion of criminal proceedings, either by way of discontinuation or after an acquittal, in proceedings concerning, inter alia, 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 v. Norway, no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; 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; Constantin Florea v. Romania, no. 21534/05, §§ 50 and 52, 19 June 2012; Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 44, 11 February 2014; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 42, 18 December 2014; and Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 62, 3 October 2019).

  It is necessary to reiterate, in this connection, that if the mere finding of liability for payment of damages, in spite of an acquittal or discontinuance, were to raise an issue under Article 6 § 2, one would have to abolish such civil liability actions, which are in fact present and common in many judicial systems and which are in principle compatible with the Convention, as evidenced by case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 60, 11 February 2014).

• EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 24/11

  CENTRO DEMARZIO S.R.L. c. ITALIE

  Enfin, la Cour observe au passage que la reconnaissance par les autorités nationales du caractère illégal de l'ingérence litigieuse se saurait suffire, en l'absence de toute réparation du préjudice subi, à redresser la violation alléguée de la Convention (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Scordino c. Italie (no 1) [GC], no 36813/97, § 178, CEDH 2006-V, et Vella c. Malte, no 69122/10, § 47, 11 février 2014).
• EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 54963/08

  Individualbeschwerde gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland wegen Verletzung des …

  Zwar ist klar, dass die bloße Feststellung einer Entschädigungspflicht in einem solchen späteren Zivilverfahren nicht per se eine Frage nach Artikel 6 aufwerfen kann, da man derartige zivilrechtliche Haftungsklagen sonst abschaffen müsste - ein Argument, das erst kürzlich in der Rechtssache Vella ./. Malta (Individualbeschwerde Nr. 69122/10, 11. Februar 2014, Rdnr. 60) vorgebracht wurde - so bleibt es doch dabei, dass das Problem dadurch, dass man zunächst von einem "unglücklichen Sprachgebrauch" spricht und dann zwischen einem unglücklichen Sprachgebrauch, durch den die Unschuldsvermutung verletzt wird, und einem unglücklichen Sprachgebrauch, durch den sie nicht verletzt wird, unterscheidet, in den Bereich des Aleatorischen abgeschoben wird.

 
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 61985/12

  FLEISCHNER v. GERMANY

  Der Gerichtshof hat bereits Fälle entschieden, in denen er die Anwendbarkeit von Artikel 6 Abs. 2 der Konvention auf Gerichtsentscheidungen prüfen musste, die im Anschluss an ein durch Einstellung oder Freispruch abgeschlossenes Strafverfahren in einem Verfahren ergangen sind, das die Feststellung der zivilrechtlichen Haftung für die Zahlung von Schadenersatz an das Opfer betraf (siehe Vella./. Malta, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 69122/10, Rdnr. 42, 11. Februar 2014, und Allen, a.a.O., Rdnr. 98, mit weiteren Nachweisen).
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 15374/11

  GÜÇ v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates in that respect that even exoneration from criminal responsibility does not, as such, preclude the establishment of civil or other forms of liability arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof (see, for example, Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II; Jakumas v. Lithuania, no. 6924/02, § 57, 18 July 2006; Çelik (Bozkurt) v. Turkey, no. 34388/05, § 30, 12 April 2011; and Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 56, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 20148/09

  RIGOLIO c. ITALIE

  L'ensemble des éléments de preuves, bien que provenant de la procédure pénale, a été porté à la connaissance de la Cour des comptes dans des conditions contradictoires, et c'est sur la base de ces éléments que la Cour des comptes a statué (voir, mutatis mutandis, Vella c. Malte, no 69122/10, § 59, 11 février 2014).
• EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 24221/13

  CARMEL SALIBA v. MALTA

  The Court notes that, in certain circumstances, such proceedings may also attract some of the guarantees applicable in criminal cases such as, for example, those of Article 6 § 2 (see, for example, Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 47, 11 February 2014) and that the requirements of a fair hearing are the most strict in the sphere of criminal law (see Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 21107/07

  ALKASI v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls in that respect that even exoneration from criminal responsibility does not, as such, preclude the establishment of civil or other forms of liability arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof (see, for example, Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II, and Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 56, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 60392/08

  SEVEN v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that even exoneration from criminal responsibility does not, as such, preclude the establishment of civil or other forms of liability arising out of the same facts on the basis of a less strict burden of proof (see, for example, Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II; Jakumas v. Lithuania, no. 6924/02, § 57, 18 July 2006; Çelik (Bozkurt) v. Turkey, no. 34388/05, § 30, 12 April 2011; and Vella v. Malta, no. 69122/10, § 56, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 58073/17

  U.Y. c. TÜRKIYE

  Sans commune mesure avec l'utilisation d'un langage malheureux que la Cour ait déjà pu tolérer, compte tenu des circonstances de l'affaire et de la nature de la tâche qui incombait aux juridictions internes (Allen, précité, § 126, Vella c. Malte, no 69122/10, §§ 57 et 61, 11 février 2014, et Güç, précité, § 42), cette déclaration explicite, qui reprend la définition même du délit réprimé par l'article 105 du code pénal (paragraphe 10 ci-dessus), revenait à ouvertement reconnaître le requérant coupable de « harcèlement sexuel'(voir, pour un constat comparable, Çelik (Bozkurt), précité, § 35) et ne pouvait que donner au lecteur du jugement l'impression que ce dernier était bel et bien l'auteur des faits reprochés par C.G. (voir, par exemple, Seven, précité, § 53 in fine).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 53561/09

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

  KOZEMIAKINA v. LITHUANIA