Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YAREMENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YAREMENKO c. UKRAINE (N° 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation de l'article 6+6-3-c - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure pénale Article 6-1 - Procès équitable) (Article 6-3-c - Se défendre avec l'assistance d'un défenseur Article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable) ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 66338/09
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 66338/09
• EGMR - 66338/09 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 66338/09

  The Government further submitted, referring to the Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009), that the Court had previously found that it had been competent to deal with relevant "new information" in the context of a fresh application.

  The applicant referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), in which the Court concluded that it might entertain a complaint that a retrial at domestic level by way of implementation of one of its judgments gave rise to a new breach of the Convention (Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009).

  Secondly, the role of the Committee of Ministers, under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, to supervise the execution of the Court's judgments does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to implement a judgment delivered by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment and thus form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court (see, inter alia, Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV, and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009).

• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

  MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 66338/09

  Secondly, the role of the Committee of Ministers, under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, to supervise the execution of the Court's judgments does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to implement a judgment delivered by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment and thus form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court (see, inter alia, Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV, and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29061/08

  STECK-RISCH AND OTHERS v. LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 66338/09

  The Government referred to the Court's case-law in which applicants" unsuccessful attempts to obtain a reopening of proceedings, which the Court had previously found to be in violation of the Convention, had been declared inadmissible (Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 15227/03, ECHR 2003-IX, and Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010).

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Similarly, the Court has found that the upholding, after review proceedings, of a conviction which breached the right to a fair trial amounted to an error of assessment which perpetuated that breach (see Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, §§ 52-56 and 64-67, 30 April 2015).

  On the other hand, the case of Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015, §§ 52-56 and 64-67 - also cited in paragraph 63 of the judgment) does have some similarities with the present case, in that the applicant was a convicted person seeking the reopening of terminated criminal proceedings on the basis of a judgment of this Court finding a violation of Article 6 in relation to the original criminal trial.

• EGMR - 48879/19 (anhängig)

  CHAYKOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  He relied on the Court's judgments in the cases of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 15685/11, 1 June 2017 and Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015).

  Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 15685/11, 1 June 2017 and Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015)?.

• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

  PELEKI c. GRÈCE

  Celle-ci n'a pas à tenir lieu de juge de quatrième instance et elle ne remet pas en cause sous l'angle de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention l'appréciation des tribunaux nationaux, sauf si leurs conclusions peuvent passer pour arbitraires ou manifestement déraisonnables (Bochan c. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no 22251/08, § 61, CEDH 2015 et les affaires qui y sont citées, ainsi que l'application de cette jurisprudence dans des arrêts plus récents: Pavlovic et autres c. Croatie, no 13274/11, § 49, 2 avril 2015, Yaremenko c. Ukraine (no 2), no 66338/09, §§ 64-67, 30 avril 2015, et Tsanova-Gecheva c. Bulgarie, no 43800/12, § 91, 15 septembre 2015).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 53561/09

  URAT v. TURKEY

  The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts" assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017 and the cases cited therein: Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015; Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; and AnÄ?elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; Pavlovic and Others v. Croatia, no. 13274/11, § 49, 2 April 2015; Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, §§ 64-67, 30 April 2015; and Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, § 91, 15 September 2015).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 55050/16

  RINAS v. FINLAND

  The Court has, however, held that "the scope and nature of the "examination" actually carried out" may in certain circumstances lead the Court to conclude that such proceedings were decisive for the determination of civil rights and obligations, or of a criminal charge, and thus render Article 6 § 1 applicable (see Bochan, cited above, §§ 54 and 56; Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 70 and 72, 11 July 2017; and Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, § 56, 30 April 2015).