Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (31)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  The nature and workings of the jury trial system introduced in Georgia on 1 October 2010 were described in Kikabidze v. Georgia (no. 57642/12, §§ 21-24, 16 November 2021) and Rusishvili v. Georgia (no. 15269/13, §§ 27-30, 30 June 2022).

  In the present case the Tbilisi Court of Appeal entertained the applicant's appeal on points of law on the merits and rejected it in a reasoned manner, answering all the main arguments advanced by him (contrast Kikabidze v. Georgia, no. 57642/12, § 20, 16 November 2021, and Rusishvili, cited above, § 26).

• EGMR, 30.06.2022 - 15269/13

  RUSISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  The nature and workings of the jury trial system introduced in Georgia on 1 October 2010 were described in Kikabidze v. Georgia (no. 57642/12, §§ 21-24, 16 November 2021) and Rusishvili v. Georgia (no. 15269/13, §§ 27-30, 30 June 2022).

  Accordingly, this was an important procedural safeguard available to the applicant, which he failed to duly employ (see in this connection Rusishvili v. Georgia, no. 15269/13, § 67, 30 June 2022).

• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  The Court has consistently found that domestic courts' reliance on such indirect evidence is not as such incompatible with the Convention (see Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005; Baybasin v. Germany (dec.), no. 36892/05, 3 February 2009; and Baduashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 18720/08, § 74, 29 November 2018).

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  While certain aspects of the reasoning of the appeal court have been looked at by the Court within the context of the examination of the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see paragraphs 84 and 90 above, and paragraph 114 below), the Court recalls that it cannot act as a court of fourth instance and will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 6091/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  Also, the fact that criminal proceedings have been accompanied by a virulent press campaign could, in certain circumstances, prejudice the fairness of the trial by influencing public opinion and, consequently, the jurors called upon to decide on the guilt of a defendant (see Rywin v. Poland, nos. 6091/06 and 2 others, § 232, 18 February 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10

  SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  These principles may be summarised as follows (see Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, § 58, 31 March 2016):.
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  Rn. 86 Turning to the question as to whether T.A.'s evidence was the sole or decisive evidence in the applicant's conviction or whether it carried significant weight, the Court notes that in the absence of reasons given for the jury's verdict and of any reasoning in the appeal judgment as to the weight given to T.A.'s recorded statement, it would be difficult for the Court to decide which evidence could be considered to have constituted the decisive basis for the applicant's conviction (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, § 196, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  In the present case there was no action or decision taken by the trial judge in the course of the trial itself which had an impact on the applicant's presumption of innocence (compare Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 121, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  However, it has repeatedly noted that departure abroad does not in itself constitute sufficient reason to justify the absence of the witness concerned from the trial (see Seton, cited above, § 61; see also Gabrielyan v. Armenia, no. 8088/05, § 78, 10 April 2012, and Al Alo v. Slovakia, no. 32084/19, §§ 48-52, 10 February 2022).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  The Court notes in this connection that it has previously acknowledged, in cases concerning the fairness of proceedings, that public statements made by high-ranking politicians might, in view of their content and the manner in which they were made, be seen as attempts to exert undue influence on judges and, therefore, constitute an element to be examined in determining whether the right to an "independent and impartial tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been respected in the circumstances of the respective case (see Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, § 80, ECHR 2002-VII; Kinský v. the Czech Republic, no. 42856/06, §§ 94-95, 9 February 2012; Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 162, 1 July 2014; Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29908/11, §§ 146-48, 21 January 2016; and Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania, no. 21218/12, § 119, 15 September 2020).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 69717/14

  JANUSKEVICIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 57435/09

  PAULIKAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 3363/08

  LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19

  MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  PULLICINO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 21218/12

  CIVINSKAITÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 32084/19

  AL ALO v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 36892/05

  N. B. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 15602/07

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 15499/10

  BEGGS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 53672/14

  KASATKIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 12710/04

  BETSON AND COCKRAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 44324/11

  LAWLESS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 18720/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 61779/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 33235/09

  FIRKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.06.2026 - 25916/18

  MARINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  La Cour a déjà admis dans des circonstances similaires qu'un recours civil pouvait en principe fournir un redressement adéquat et suffisant au requérant (à rapprocher avec Okropiridze c. Géorgie, nos 43627/16 et 71667/16, § 114, 7 septembre 2023, Narbutas c. Lituanie, no 14139/21, §§ 213-214, 19 décembre 2023, et à contraster avec Konstas, précité, §§ 29 et 40, dans lequel le requérant a soulevé le grief tiré d'une violation de son droit à la présomption d'innocence en tant que garantie du procès équitable à raison des déclarations des hauts fonctionnaires de l'État faites au moment de l'appel de sa condamnation).

  Rn. 4 L'approche adoptée dans l'arrêt Konstas, en ce qui concerne l'épuisement des voies de recours, n'est plus étayée par notre jurisprudence actuelle: une jurisprudence plus récente a précisé que les recours civils peuvent en principe être effectifs relativement à des déclarations préjudiciables faites par des autorités non judiciaires en dehors d'une procédure pénale formelle (Okropiridze c. Géorgie, nos 43627/16 et 71667/16, § 113, 7 septembre 2023 ; Narbutas c. Lituanie, no 14139/21, § 214, 19 décembre 2023 ; Januškevičienė c. Lituanie, no 69717/14, § 59, 3 septembre 2019).

• EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 6232/20

  Micheil Saakaschwili

  43627/16 and 71667/16, § 84, 7 September 2023; Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 199-200, 23 October 2012; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, §§ 217-18, 11 December 2008; and Strassenmeyer v. Germany, no. 57818/18, § 78, 2 May 2023).
• EGMR, 02.06.2026 - 34695/22

  RATH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Furthermore, with regard to the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence, the Government emphasised that, as the statements came from persons not directly involved in the proceedings, the criminal courts had not been in a position to provide appropriate redress to the applicant since they were not entitled to order any public official to refrain from further statements or to offer an apology, nor could they order that compensation be paid to the applicant (the Government referred to the case of Okropiridze v. Georgia, nos. 43627/16 and 71667/16, 7 September 2023).

• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18

  RIMSÄ'VICS v. LATVIA and 1 other application

  In a number of other cases the Court has found that a civil-law remedy may, in principle, be an effective way of addressing a complaint relating to allegedly prejudicial statements made in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings, either alone or in combination with a criminal-law remedy (see Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, § 63, 3 November 2022, and Okropiridze v. Georgia, nos. 43627/16 and 71667/16, § 113, 7 September 2023).
• EGMR, 13.01.2026 - 54353/20

  VOVK v. UKRAINE

  43627/16 and 71667/16, §§ 111-15, 7 September 2023; and Narbutas v. Lithuania, no. 14139/21, §§ 210-17, 19 December 2023).
• EGMR, 06.05.2025 - 3613/19

  LEMBERGS v. LATVIA

  The Court notes that under this provision, a complaint alleging that the presumption of innocence has been violated by statements made by those not involved in criminal proceedings can be submitted by the individual concerned in the course of the ongoing criminal proceedings (contrast Lakatoš and Others, cited above, § 113 in fine, and Okropiridze v. Georgia, nos. 43627/16 and 71667/16, § 114, 7 September 2023).
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 23369/16

  JAUPI v. ALBANIA

  43627/16 and 71667/16, § 80, 7 September 2023).
• EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

  RYTIKOV v. UKRAINE

  43627/16 and 71667/16, § 113, 7 September 2023; and Rimševičs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 31634/18, § 49, 10 October 2023) considers that in Ukraine a civil-law remedy may, in principle, be an effective way of addressing a complaint relating to allegedly prejudicial statements made in respect of ongoing criminal proceedings, either alone or in combination with a criminal-law remedy.
• EGMR, 16.12.2025 - 43537/22

  VEKUA v. GEORGIA

  Rn. 35 The Court has previously accepted that a remedy under civil law can, in principle, be considered effective in respect of alleged violations of the principle of the presumption of innocence (see Okropiridze v. Georgia, nos. 43627/16 and 71667/16, §§ 113-15, 7 September 2023, and Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, § 63, 3 November 2022).
• EGMR, 02.12.2025 - 41541/22

  PU? NIK v. SLOVENIA

  The Court further notes that there were sufficient factors counterbalancing any handicaps that the admission of that evidence might have entailed for the defence (compare Okropiridze v. Georgia, nos. 43627/16 and 71667/16, § 89, 7 September 2023).