Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SACHARUK v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege;Conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SACHARUK v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 7 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (30)

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  According to the Court's general approach, it does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others, cited above, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Huhtamäki, cited above, § 51); given the subsidiary nature of the Convention system, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a domestic court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention and unless that domestic assessment is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, inter alia, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017, and Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 110, 16 April 2019).
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  According to the Court's general approach, it does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others, cited above, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Huhtamäki, cited above, § 51); given the subsidiary nature of the Convention system, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a domestic court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention and unless that domestic assessment is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, inter alia, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017, and Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 110, 16 April 2019).
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 12778/17

  Türkei verurteilt: Haft für Verfassungsrichter war illegal

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  According to the Court's general approach, it does not question the interpretation and application of national law by national courts unless there has been a flagrant non-observance or arbitrariness in the application of that law (see, inter alia, Société Colas Est and Others, cited above, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Huhtamäki, cited above, § 51); given the subsidiary nature of the Convention system, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a domestic court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention and unless that domestic assessment is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, inter alia, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017, and Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 110, 16 April 2019).

 
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (see S.W. v. the United Kingdom, 22 November 1995, § 36, Series A no. 335-B; Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96 and 2 others, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; and Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 35343/05, § 155, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  The Court's role is thus confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999-I; Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008; and Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 197, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  In this context, the Court reiterates that even when a point is ruled upon for the first time in an applicant's case, a violation of Article 7 of the Convention will not arise if the meaning given is both foreseeable and consistent with the essence of the offence (see Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, § 114, ECHR 2007 III; Custers and Others v. Denmark, nos. 11843/03 and 2 others, 3 May 2007; and Huhtamäki v. Finland, no. 54468/09, § 51, 6 March 2012).
• EGMR, 16.04.2002 - 37971/97

  STES COLAS EST AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  Domestic law must further be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned, and the person affected must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him or her (see, inter alia, Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13 and 2 others, § 332, 25 May 2021; see also Société Colas Est and Others v. France, no. 37971/97, § 43, ECHR 2002-III; Wolland v. Norway, no. 39731/12, § 62, 17 May 2018; and Särgava v. Estonia, no. 698/19, § 86, 16 November 2021).
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  The applicant's situation was different from that examined by the Court in Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 817, 25 July 2013): in the applicant's case, the media had widely informed the public that members of the Seimas, other than him, voted for one another.
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  While the text of the Convention is the starting-point for such an assessment, having regard to its aim, which is to protect rights that are practical and effective, the Court may take into consideration the need to preserve a balance between the general interest and the fundamental rights of individuals and the notions currently prevailing in democratic States (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII, and Jasuitis and Simaitis v. Lithuania, nos.
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 75737/01

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit der Richter …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

  In some cases, the Court has considered it a relevant factor in assessing a domestic court's impartiality in a subsequent case that that court had shown that it had carried out a fresh examination of the subsequent case (see Schwarzenberger v. Germany, no. 75737/01, § 43, 10 August 2006; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 117, 28 June 2011; and Bezek v. Germany (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 22.11.1995 - 20166/92

  S.W. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

  YÜKSEL YALÇINKAYA v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 21698/06

  Unabhängiges und unparteiliches Gericht (Befangenheitsrügen bei …
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 1845/08

  PREVITI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 4211/12

  BEZEK v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07

  FRUNI v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54468/09

  HUHTAMAKI v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 40403/02

  PESSINO c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 22429/07

  PARMAK AND BAKIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 28186/19

  JASUITIS AND SIMAITIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 24916/05

  FLORIN IONESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 698/19

  SÄRGAVA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2005 - 45558/99
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 39731/12

  WOLLAND v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 38395/12

  DALLAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 1128/17

  Meng ./. Deutschland - Konventionsverletzung durch Beteiligung eines nicht …
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 12.06.2019 - 23532/14

  DAINELIENE AGAINST LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 52095/11

  TESLYA v. UKRAINE