Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=04.03.2010&Aktenzeichen=28245/04
Timestamp: 2019-05-20 10:11:14
Document Index: 324428454

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', '§ 49', '§ 32', '§ 107', '§ 145', '§ 64', '§ 111', '§ 49', '§ 37', '§ 46', '§ 38', '§ 33', '§ 48', '§ 41', '§ 53', '§ 45', '§ 1', '§ 30', '§ 37', '§ 49', '§ 53', '§ 41', '§ 53', '§ 45', '§ 35', '§ 95', '§ 31', '§ 53', '§ 41', '§ 2', '§ 34', '§ 208', '§ 93', '§ 28', '§ 102', '§ 19', '§ 2', '§ 34', '§ 208', '§ 28', '§ 153', '§ 102', '§ 19', '§ 107']

EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2010,63682
EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.03.2010 - 28245/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. März 2010 - 28245/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63682)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63682) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Das Recht auf Achtung der Unschuldsvermutung dient dazu, Personen vor Äußerungen von Amtsträgern zu schützen, welche die Öffentlichkeit dahingehend beeinflussen, die Betreffenden für schuldig zu halten, bevor der gesetzliche Beweis ihrer Schuld erbracht worden ist, und der Bewertung des Sachverhalts durch die zuständigen Tatgerichte vorgreifen, und so ein faires Verfahren vor diesen Gerichten sicherzustellen (vgl. Allenet de Ribemont ./. Frankreich, 10. Februar 1995, Rdnrn. 35 and 41, Serie A Band 308; und Mokhov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28245/04, Rdnr. 28, 4. März 2010).
EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 35726/10
The Court has held that an ultimate finding of guilt cannot negate the applicant's initial right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (see Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 49, ECHR 2006-X, compare also Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, § 32, 4 March 2010 and Kolomenskiy v. Russia, no. 27297/07, § 107, 13 December 2016).
The Court thus found a violation of Article 6 in cases in which the nature of the civil dispute was such as to justify the claimant's personal presence before the court, irrespective of whether or not he had been represented at the hearing (see, as regards claims for compensation for inadequate conditions of detention: Insanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16133/0, § 145, 14 March 2013; Skorobogatykh v. Russia, no. 4871/03, § 64, 22 December 2009; and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, § 111, 17 December 2009; see also Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, § 49, 12 June 2012, and Kovalev v. Russia, no. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007 concerning the applicant's ill-treatment claim against the police; Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 46-47, 4 March 2010, and Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 38, Series A no. 212-A concerning a defamation claim; Sokur v. Russia, no. 23243/03, §§ 33-35, 15 October 2009, and Göç, cited above, § 48 concerning a dispute about the quantum of damages claimed as a result of unlawful detention and prosecution; see also Súsanna Rós Westlund v. Iceland, no. 42628/04, § 41, 6 December 2007).
This being so, the Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in a case where a Russian court, after having refused leave to appear to the detainees, who had wished to make oral submissions on their defamation claim, failed to consider other legal possibilities for securing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008; see also Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 45-51, 4 March 2010).
In that connection the Court recalls that, in a series of cases in which it examined the question of personal participation of applicants in judicial proceedings as a "fair trial" issue under Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sokur v. Russia, no. 23243/03, § 30 et seq., 15 October 2009; Kovalev v. Russia, no. 78145/01, § 37, 10 May 2007; Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, § 49, 12 June 2012; Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008; Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 41 et seq., 4 March 2010), it found a violation of that provision as a result of the applicants not having been given an opportunity to take part in hearings, when their participation would have been crucial as their claims had been largely based on their personal experience.
The Court has previously found violations of Article 6 of the Convention in cases where Russian courts, after having refused leave to appear to detainees who had wished to make oral submissions on civil claims, failed to consider other legal avenues for the securing of their effective participation in the proceedings (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 53 et seq., 23 October 2008; see also Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 45-51, 4 March 2010; and Larin v. Russia, no. 15034/02, § 35 et seq., 20 May 2010).
Given that the deputy head of the National Interpol Bureau represented the law-enforcement authorities when interviewed, he should have exercised particular caution in his choice of words when describing the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, §§ 95-96, 23 October 2008, and Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 31-32, 4 March 2010).
The Court observes that it has previously found a violation of the right to a "public and fair hearing" in a number of cases where Russian courts, after having refused leave to appear to imprisoned applicants wishing to make oral submissions on their civil claim on the ground that the domestic law did not make provision for convicted persons to be brought from correctional colonies to the place where their civil claim was being heard, failed to consider other legal means of securing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Khuzhin and Others, cited above, §§ 53 et seq., and Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 41 et seq., 4 March 2010).
Le requérant bénéficiait-il de la présomption d'innocence garantie par l'article 6 § 2 de la Convention pendant la période comprise entre le 27 juillet 2011, date à laquelle il a été condamné par le tribunal de première instance, et le 20 septembre 2011, date à laquelle sa condamnation a été confirmée en appel (comparer avec Konstas c. Grèce, no 53466/07, §§ 34-38, 24 mai 2011, et Rywin c. Pologne, nos 6091/06 et 2 autres, § 208, 18 février 2016) ? Dans l'affirmative, la présomption d'innocence a-t-elle été respectée à l'endroit du requérant eu égard au contenu de l'article publié sur le site web du FSKN le 18 août 2011 (Khoujine et autres c. Russie, no 13470/02, §§ 93-96, 23 octobre 2008, Mokhov c. Russie, no 28245/04, §§ 28-32, 4 mars 2010, Maksim Petrov c. Russie, no 23185/03, §§ 102-106, 6 novembre 2012, et Turyev c. Russie, no 20758/04, §§ 19-22, 11 octobre 2016) ? Le Gouvernement est invité à soumettre une copie de l'article en question.
Bearing in mind Article 49 of the Russian Constitution and that under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention a defendant shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty "according to law", could the applicant benefit from the presumption of innocence in October 2005 (see Konstas v. Greece, no. 53466/07, §§ 34-38, 24 May 2011, and Rywin v. Poland, nos. 6091/06 and 2 others, § 208, 18 February 2016)? If yes, was this presumption respected in the present case (see Mokhov v. Russia, no. 28245/04, §§ 28-32, 4 March 2010; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, §§ 153 and 159-62, 22 April 2010; Maksim Petrov v. Russia, no. 23185/03, §§ 102-06, 6 November 2012; Turyev v. Russia, no. 20758/04, §§ 19-22, 11 October 2016; Kolomenskiy v. Russia, no. 27297/07, § 107, 13 December 2016; and Sutyagin v. Russia (dec.), no. 30024/02, 8 July 2008)?.