Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 63041/13 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,14645) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FARRUGIA v. MALTA
No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
FARRUGIA v. MALTA
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08
Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …
- EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 63041/13
Having examined the ECtHR case law from Imbrioscia v. Switzerland (24 November 1993, Series A no. 275) onwards, it noted, with particular reference to Salduz, that in Maltese law, at the relevant time, no inferences from silence could be made. - EGMR - 45886/07
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 63041/13
Where it is clear from the outset, however, that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 259, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). - EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 19/11
LANG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HASTIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 63041/13
19/11 and 36395/11, 22 May 2012, where an application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time enabling applicants to raise their claims following the Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008) judgment, was considered to be an extraordinary remedy, and thus could not bring all the affected persons within the six months" limit for the purposes of the Convention). - EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 46931/12
APAP BOLOGNA v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 63041/13
This has been so despite the fact that, according to Maltese law and established practice constitutional redress proceedings are not subject to a time bar (see, for example Apap Bologna v. Malta, no. 46931/12, § 46, 30 August 2016).
- EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09
LEKA v. ALBANIA
It is noteworthy that, in the present case, the applicant was informed repeatedly, before each round of questioning, of his right to remain silent and of his right to legal assistance (compare Farrugia v. Malta, no. 63041/13, § 112, 4 June 2019, and contrast Beuze, cited above, § 184; see also paragraphs 8 and 12 above). - EGMR, 25.10.2022 - 68725/16
XENOFONTOS AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
The approach in Salduz was followed by my Partly Dissenting Opinion in Simeonovi, cited above, and my Joint Dissenting Opinion with Pinto de Albuquerque in Farrugia v. Malta, no. 63041/13, 4 June 2019.