Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (29)

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  At the outset, and in reply to the second to fourth applicants" arguments, the Court reiterates that it is not its role to ascertain whether or not the rules of substantive or procedural law were correctly followed by the domestic courts in the course of the examination of the ownership dispute (see, for instance, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, 5 February 2015).

  According to the thinking underlying the notion of "a manifest error of assessment" (une erreur manifeste d"appréciation - a concept of French administrative law), as used in the context of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, if the error of law or fact by the national court is so blatantly evident that, from the standpoint of an objective observer, no reasonable court could ever have made it, this manifest error may disturb the fairness of the proceedings (compare, for instance, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2015, and the other authorities cited therein).

• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  The Court reiterates that the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see, amongst many other authorities, Levages Prestations Services v. France, no. 21920/93, § 46, 23 October 1996, and Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, § 32, no. 14448/88, 27 October 1993).
• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  A member of the tribunal must be independent of both the executive and also of the parties (see, for instance, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, § 95, and Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 24, § 55).

 
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  A member of the tribunal must be independent of both the executive and also of the parties (see, for instance, Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 39, § 95, and Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 24, § 55).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  In this connection even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 6639/11, § 63, 25 September 2018, and De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  Reiterating that a tribunal must be always presumed to be free of personal prejudice or partiality (see, for instance, Kyprianou, cited above, § 119) and that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 47, Series A no. 154), the Court further notes that the second to fourth applicants have not presented, either at the domestic level or in the proceedings before it, any information to show that the President of the Supreme Court held such a negative attitude with regard to N.Gv. in relation to the past affairs that had occurred more than a decade before.
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  That being so, it is of the opinion that, from the standpoint of an objective observer, the whole of the enlarged bench cannot be said to have been tainted by the applicants" challenge to the President of the Supreme Court, especially when that judicial formation decided on the case by unanimous vote (compare, amongst others, with Sturua v. Georgia, no. 45729/05, § 35, 28 March 2017; Fazli Aslaner v. Turkey, no. 36073/04, §§ 37-39, 4 March 2014; Ferragut Pallach v. Spain (dec.), no. 1182/03, 28 February 2006; Garrido Guerrero v. Spain (dec.), no. 43715/98, ECHR 2000-III; OOO "Vesti" and Ukhov v. Russia, no. 21724/03, § 83, 30 May 2013; and Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 38, Series A no. 325-A).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  The scope of a case "referred to" the Court in the exercise of the right of individual application is determined by the applicant's complaint or "claim" which is the term used in Article 34 of the Convention (see, as a recent authority, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 108-09, 20 March 2018, and Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 44, Series A no. 56).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  All in all, having regard to the fact that not even an arguable issue under the cited substantive provision of the Convention - Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - can be said to exist in the particular circumstances of the present case, Article 18 of the Convention cannot possibly be relied on alone (see Merabishvili, cited above, § 287; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, cited above, §§ 663 and 664; and Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  In order to establish whether a tribunal can be considered to be "independent" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, regard must be had, inter alia, to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question whether the body presents the appearance of independence (see Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 49, ECHR 2013 (extracts), with further references therein).
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

  COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69582/01

  SARDINE c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 45023/98

  BEN SALAH ADRAQUI and DHAIME v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13839/88

  DEBLED v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 45729/05

  STURUA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 37119/97

  N.F. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98

  KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

  MARTYNETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 37780/02

  MELTEX LTD v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2003 - 63000/00

  SKONDRIANOS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 26290/12

  BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 10978/06

  BARTAIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 13338/03

  AO
• EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 43715/98

  GARRIDO GUERRERO contre l'ESPAGNE
• EKMR, 08.09.1988 - 13021/87

  RUIZ MATEOS v. the UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.02.2004 - 7274/02

  ESKELINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 41258/98

  TORMALA and OTHERS v. FINLAND

• EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 6232/20

  Micheil Saakaschwili

  Applying these principles to the circumstances of the present case, and reiterating that the question of the scope of the applicability of Article 18 was joined to the merits of the present case (see Saakashvili, the decision cited above, §§ 60-61, 1 March 2022) and that, as a matter of principle, a breach of Article 18 can be found even if there is no breach of the Article(s) in conjunction with which it applies (see, for instance, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, § 315, 18 July 2019), the Court notes that its first task should normally be to rule, in reply to the Government's first objection to the admissibility (see paragraph 157 above), on whether Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention contain any express or implied restrictions that may form the subject of the Court's examination under Article 18. However, it considers that there is no need for it to take a stance on this complex legal issue - which has not been definitively settled in its case-law (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017) - because, in any event, as the Government have suggested in their second objection, the applicant has not sufficiently substantiated, by reference to specific facts, his complaint.
• EGMR, 09.07.2024 - 7011/19

  STRANCARIC v. CROATIA

  As regards the objective test, the applicant presented no evidence to suggest that Judge A.A. had expressed any views concerning her complaint with the Commission, let alone displayed hostility or a wish to retaliate (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, §§ 358-361, 18 July 2019; and contrast Tocono and Profesorii Prometeisti v. Moldova, no. 32263/03, §§ 28-33, 26 June 2007).
• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 19750/13

  GROSAM v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Si le requérant souhaitait à ce stade alléguer une violation des garanties énoncées à l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, il aurait dû le faire clairement dans son formulaire de requête, à l'instar de ce qu'il a fait par la suite, dans ses observations du 5 novembre 2015 produites devant la chambre (paragraphe 82 ci-dessus, et, en comparaison, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd et autres c. Géorgie, no 16812/17, § 246, 18 juillet 2019).

 
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 2303/19

  KATSIKEROS v. GREECE

  In particular, in order for an applicant to be able to call into question the independence and/or impartiality of a judge under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant must show that he or she had made an application for recusal of that judge at the domestic level in accordance with the relevant procedural law (compare, among many other authorities, Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, § 304, 18 July 2019, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40072/13

  MIROSLAVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE

  Thus, any judge in respect of whom there is a legitimate reason to fear a lack of impartiality must withdraw (see Micallef, cited above, for example, where the judge had made public statements relating to the outcome of the case; see also Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, 18 July 2019).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  If Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies, Article 18 of the Convention must also be seen as applicable (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 663, 20 September 2011; Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, §§ 316-17, 18 July 2019; and Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos.
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 27925/21

  Pablo Hasél

  The Court has stated that where no arguable issue, or no interference with the applicant's rights, under the relevant substantive provision has been established, Article 18 cannot be relied upon (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, §§ 316-17, 18 July 2019).
• EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 24827/14

  FU QUAN, S.R.O. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Or elle ne l'a fait qu'après, dans ses observations devant la chambre datées du 17 juin 2016 (voir le paragraphe 143 ci-dessus, et comparer avec Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd et autres c. Géorgie, no 16812/17, § 246, 18 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 55009/20

  HUCI c. ROUMANIE

  Si les requérants entendaient, à ce stade, faire valoir la responsabilité de l'État relativement au volet matériel et le manquement des autorités nationales concernant la protection du droit à la vie, ils auraient dû l'expliciter clairement dans leur formulaire de requête, à l'instar de ce qu'ils ont fait par la suite, dans leurs observations du 30 mai 2022 présentées après la communication au Gouvernement, sous l'angle des deux volets susmentionnés, de la requête par la Cour (comparer avec Grosam, précité, § 95, et Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd et autres c. Géorgie, no 16812/17, § 246, 18 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 30464/13

  AKHALAIA v. GEORGIA

  However, where no arguable issue, or no interference with the applicant's rights, under the relevant substantive provision has been established, Article 18 cannot be relied upon (see Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia, no. 16812/17, §§ 316-17, 18 July 2019).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

  Q AND R v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 22431/20

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 14767/16

  NAFTOGAZVYDOBUVANNYA, PJSC v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 57935/18 (anhängig)

  BROCI v. ALBANIA and 2 other applications