Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARGUS v. CROATIA
Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Article 6-3-c - Defence in ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARGUS c. CROATIE
Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis) Partiellement irrecevable Non-violation de l'article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure pénale Article 6-1 - Tribunal impartial) Article 6-1 - Procès équitable Article 6-3-c - Se ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARGUS v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (22)
- RG, 30.01.1897 - 4/97
Ablehnung eines Beweisantrages wegen Unerheblichkeit des Beweisthemas.
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
As to the present case, the Court notes that judge M.K. indeed participated both in the criminal proceedings conducted before the Osijek County Court under case number K-4/97 and in the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant before the same court under case number K-33/06.The mere fact that judge M.K. participated both in the criminal proceedings conducted before the Osijek County Court under case number K-4/97 and in the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant before the same court under case number K-33/06 should not in itself be seen as incompatible with the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 of the Convention.
Finally, as a consequence of the two previous defects the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant (no. K-4/97) was terminated in the form of a "discontinuance of criminal proceedings", and not in the form of a "final acquittal or conviction" within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7. It is quite clear that the Croatian authorities were responsible for several fundamental defects in the previous proceedings, contrary to national, international and Convention law.
- EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03
Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
In the case of Zolotukhin, the Court took the view that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 had to be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second "offence" in so far as it arose from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 82, ECHR 2009).This approach is well established in the Court's case-law (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 107, ECHR 2009).
- EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
- EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 34738/04
YESIL ET SEVIM c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
The Court has already held that, where a State agent has been charged with crimes involving torture or ill-treatment, it is of the utmost importance that criminal proceedings and sentencing are not time-barred and that the granting of an amnesty or pardon should not be permissible (see Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 55, 2 November 2004; Okkalı v. Turkey, no 52067/99, § 76, 17 October 2006; and Yesil and Sevim v. Turkey, no. 34738/04, § 38, 5 June 2007). - EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09
AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 54, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 13113/03
OULD DAH c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
In its decision in the case of Ould Dah v. France ((dec.), no. 13113/03, ECHR 2009) the Court held, referring also to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the ICTY, that an amnesty was generally incompatible with the duty incumbent on States to investigate acts such as torture and that the obligation to prosecute criminals should not therefore be undermined by granting impunity to the perpetrator in the form of an amnesty law that might be considered contrary to international law. - EKMR, 11.12.1981 - 9433/81
X. v. the NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
The application of the ne bis in idem guarantee was assessed by the "old" Court from the standpoint of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see X. v The Netherlands, no. 9433/81, Commission decision of 11 December, 1981, Decisions and Reports 27, p. 233, and S. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 8945/80, decision of 13 December 1983, D.R. 39, p. 43). - EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 20887/03
KOT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
Furthermore, according to the "new" Court's well-established case-law in terms of Article 6 § 1, only exceptional circumstances (that is, a "fundamental defect") warrant the quashing of a final judicial decision by way of supervisory review (see, among many other authorities, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, ECHR 2003-X; Brumarescu v. Romania [GC], no. 28342/95, ECHR 1999-VII; and Kot v. Russia, no. 20887/03, 18 January 2007). - EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
Moreover, the applicability of the procedural obligation stemming from Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention seems far from obvious to us in this case, in the light of the principles established in Janowiec and Others v. Russia ([GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, ECHR 2013). - EKMR, 13.12.1983 - 8945/80
S. v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10
The application of the ne bis in idem guarantee was assessed by the "old" Court from the standpoint of an alleged violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see X. v The Netherlands, no. 9433/81, Commission decision of 11 December, 1981, Decisions and Reports 27, p. 233, and S. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 8945/80, decision of 13 December 1983, D.R. 39, p. 43). - EKMR, 13.12.1982 - 9587/81
X. c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
- EKMR, 13.12.1982 - 9453/81
X. c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99
VANYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 63226/00
CRAXI III contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91
DIENNET v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65
RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 12.06.2006 - 32045/03
ROMERO MARTIN c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.06.2021 - C-203/20
Generalanwältin Kokott: Europäischer Haftbefehl nach Aufhebung einer Amnestie …
Vgl. auch Urteil des EGMR vom 27. Mai 2014, Margus/Kroatien (4455/10, CE:ECHR:2014:0527JUD000445510, Rn. 122 bis 141).