Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JAKUMAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (length) Remainder inadmissible Costs and expenses award - domestic and Convention proceedings (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 28135/95

  MAGEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 6924/02

  In particular, there is no evidence that the interrogations of 14 to 17 November 1995 were conducted in intimidating circumstances, that the applicant was forced to confess, or that indeed he made any self-incriminating statements during that questioning or thereafter (see, by contrast, Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 6924/02

  In view of his allegation of an absence of domestic remedies for this complaint, he has failed to comply with the six month time-limit of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 23.04.2002 - 48040/99

  ZHELEZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 6924/02

  It has not been established that the applicant's inability to contact his lawyer by telephone - or by any other means - from 14 to 17 November 1995 was not the result of his own fault (see, Zhelezov v. Russia (dec.), no. 48040/99, 23 April 2002).
• EKMR, 07.10.1987 - 11882/85

  C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 6924/02

  The Court further recalls 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, mutatis mutandis, Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, § 38, ECHR 2003-II; also see, C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 11882/85, Commission decision of 7 October 1987, DR 54, p. 162).

• 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, 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, 03.09.2013 - 43519/07

  MILOJEVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  The only basis on which the present applicants can bring a complaint about a breach of the presumption of innocence in relation to their dismissal is by alleging that official statements in the context of the dismissal proceedings and the subsequent civil proceedings amounted to an unequivocal declaration of their guilt which could have prejudged the subsequent assessment of the charges against them in the context of the ensuing criminal proceedings or cast doubt on the correctness of their acquittal once the criminal proceedings were finalised without a guilty verdict (see, mutatis mutandis, Jakumas v. Lithuania, no. 6924/02, § 57, 18 July 2006 and Y v. Norway, cited above, § 46).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 61213/08

  MATOS DINIS c. PORTUGAL

  De même, la Cour a estimé que la révocation d'un officier de police ou d'un fonctionnaire municipal accusé d'une infraction pénale ne constituait pas, en tant que telle, une violation de l'article 6 § 2 (Jakumas c. Lituanie, no 6924/02, §§ 56-57, 18 juillet 2006, et Moullet c. France (no 2) (déc.), no 27521/04, CEDH 2007-X).