Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEXANDRU-RADU LUCA v. ROMANIA

  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LUCA v. ROMANIA

  Art. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. dProtokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 3795/15

  MIHAIL MIHAILESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 20837/18

  DOMESTIC LAW 36. The following relevant domestic law is set out in Mihail Mihailescu v. Romania (no. 3795/15, §§ 21-22, 12 January 2021): provisions of the Constitution concerning international human rights treaties (Article 20), a person's rights of free access to a court (Article 21), defence (Article 24) and use of appeals (Article 129) and the effects of a Constitutional Court decision (Article 147); and the relevant provisions of the CCP, as in force at the material time, concerning the separation of judicial functions (Article 3), a pre-trial judge's competence (Article 54) and examination of complaints (Article 341), the scope of the pre-trial judge procedure (Article 342), the preliminary steps taken by and the procedure before the pre-trial judge (Articles 344-345), the pre-trial judge's decisions (Article 346) and the challenge against such decisions (Article 347).

  The manner in which Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 is to be applied during the investigation or pre-trial stage of proceedings depends on the special features of the proceedings involved and on the circumstances of the case (see Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 253, and, mutatis mutandis, Mihail Mihailescu v. Romania, no. 3795/15, § 80, 12 January 2021).

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 20837/18

  The Court's findings are without prejudice to the domestic authorities' actions to set up a domestic legal framework in order to ensure a heightened level of protection compared with the Convention as regards proceedings before a pre-trial judge (see the remarks made in this respect by the Constitutional Court, cited in paragraph 37 above - see also, mutatis mutandis, Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 172, 25 June 2019).
• EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 5556/10

  SA-CAPITAL OY v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 20837/18

  They require a "fair balance" between the parties: each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see, among other authorities, Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 87, ECHR 2005-VIII, and SA-Capital Oy v. Finland, no. 5556/10, § 66, 14 February 2019).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 20837/18

  According to the right to adversarial proceedings the parties must have the opportunity not only to make known any evidence needed for their claims to succeed, but also to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence adduced or observations filed, with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 50, 10 July 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 66847/12

  HAARDE v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 20837/18

  For instance, the evidence obtained during this stage often determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial (see Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 253, with further references, and Haarde v. Iceland, no. 66847/12, § 78, 23 November 2017).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 79490/17

  CADAR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The Court further notes that the present case is similar to the case of Alexandru-Radu Luca v. Romania (no. 20837/18, §§ 75-76, 14 June 2022), in which the Court found that the measures and decisions taken during the pre-trial judge proceedings viewed overall had not weakened the applicant's position to such an extent that the subsequent proceedings aimed at determining the merits of the criminal charge against him had been rendered unfair.
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 45167/19

  ODEBIYI v. PORTUGAL

  In sum, the Court considers that it cannot be said that the measures taken at an earlier stage, viewed overall, weakened the applicant's position to such an extent that the subsequent proceedings aimed at determining the merits of the criminal charge against him were rendered unfair (compare Alexandru-Radu Luca v. Romania, no. 20837/18, § 76, 14 June 2022).