Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2022,30064
EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19 (https://dejure.org/2022,30064)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.11.2022 - 9487/19 (https://dejure.org/2022,30064)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. November 2022 - 9487/19 (https://dejure.org/2022,30064)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,30064) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA

    No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing;Exclusion of public);Violation of Article 6 ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (35)

  • EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19
    A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, §§ 27, 30 and 37, Series A no. 62; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000 X; and Matijašević v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006).
  • EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

    ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19
    A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, §§ 27, 30 and 37, Series A no. 62; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000 X; and Matijašević v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

    Minelli ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 9487/19
    A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, §§ 27, 30 and 37, Series A no. 62; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000 X; and Matijašević v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006).
  • EGMR, 17.06.2025 - 5855/23

    MAMALADZE v. GEORGIA (NO. 2)

    On 31 January 2019 the applicant lodged an application with the Court (Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, 3 November 2022 - "the initial application").

    On 3 November 2022, the Court adopted a judgment in the initial application, which became final on 6 March 2023 (see Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, 3 November 2022).

    The applicant's caution when interacting with his lawyer does not, on the face of it, appear unusual given that the criminal case against him had involved covert surveillance measures (see Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, 3 November 2022, §§ 8-9).

  • EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 4100/24

    RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA

    At the material time the applicant was also representing the interests of the defendant in another high-profile criminal case, that received significant media attention, concerning an attempted murder of the Patriarch's personal secretary (hereinafter "the Mamaladze case" - also referred to in the domestic proceedings as "the Cyanide case"; see Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, 3 November 2022, and Mamaladze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5855/23, 17 June 2025).

    The Court concurs with the domestic courts' finding that, at the material time, a debate concerning the so-called "Cyanide case" was ongoing, attracting significant public interest (see, in this connection, Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, §§ 16-32, and 33, 3 November 2022).

  • EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

    NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

    The Court notes that it has previously held 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 the cases cited therein).
  • EGMR, 02.06.2026 - 34695/22

    RATH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    As the Court had already held, such an objection allowed the criminal courts to restore the applicant to the position he would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 had not been disregarded (he referred, in particular, to the case of Šantare and Labazņikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, § 71, 31 March 2016); it had thus not been unreasonable to pursue the matter within the criminal proceedings rather than resorting to another remedy, with that choice being the applicant's to make (here he cited Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, §§ 66-67, 3 November 2022).
  • EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

    OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

    As to the remaining elements of the applicant's relevant complaint, the Court notes that in its recent judgment in Mamaladze v. Georgia (no. 9487/19, 3 November 2022) it examined a similar objection by the Government (ibid., §§ 63-67) and noted, in so far as the statements of public officials were concerned, that the civil-law remedy could in principle provide adequate and sufficient redress to the applicant (ibid. at 65).
  • 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, 02.07.2026 - 22126/15

    BASTOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    Rn. 21 The general principles concerning the presumption of innocence have been summarised in Popovici v. Moldova (nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, § 78, 27 November 2007) and more recently in Mamaladze v. Georgia (no. 9487/19, §§ 105-09, 3 November 2022).
  • EGMR, 05.12.2024 - 11027/22

    KEZERASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Rn. 67 The Court notes that in its judgment in the case of Mamaladze v. Georgia (no. 9487/19, 3 November 2022) it examined a similar objection by the Government (ibid., §§ 63-67) and found, in so far as the statements of public officials were concerned, that civil proceedings could in principle provide adequate and sufficient redress to the applicant in that case (ibid., § 65).
  • EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 52855/19

    RYTIKOV v. UKRAINE

    Rn. 44 Even though the applicant did not consider the defamation proceedings an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 2 (see paragraph 38 above), the Court, having regard to its case-law (for instance, Marchiani v. France (dec.), no. 30392/03, 27 May 2008; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 176-78, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Januškevičienė v. Lithuania, no. 69717/14, §§ 58-59, 3 September 2019; Mamaladze v. Georgia, no. 9487/19, § 65, 3 November 2022; Okropiridze v. Georgia, nos.
  • 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, 11.07.2023 - 37814/10

    MUCAJ v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 10.09.2024 - 73896/16

    CHOKOV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 53488/15

    BECCHETTI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 68786/14

    KOMAR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 14.11.2024 - 11536/23

    ROBERTI v. SAN MARINO

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht