Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMMAD MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mammad Mammadov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38073/06

  As was found above, the proceedings before the Supreme Court did not comply with the requirements of fairness, as the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to exercise any of his rights under Article 6. In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the cassation appeal proceedings in order to guarantee the examination of his appeal in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov, cited above, § 46; and Abbasov, cited above, §§ 41-42).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38073/06

  As was found above, the proceedings before the Supreme Court did not comply with the requirements of fairness, as the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to exercise any of his rights under Article 6. In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the cassation appeal proceedings in order to guarantee the examination of his appeal in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov, cited above, § 46; and Abbasov, cited above, §§ 41-42).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38073/06

  The Court further observes that in certain cases it has found that the personal presence of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see, for example, Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168).

 
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38073/06

  This means that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence presented by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38073/06

  The Court further observes that in certain cases it has found that the personal presence of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see, for example, Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38073/06

  This right is implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 (see Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 27, Series A no. 89, and Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A no. 282-A).