Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 05.04.1995 - 22596/93 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,27028) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
EINARSSON v. ICELAND
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2, Art. 34 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78
Eckle ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EKMR, 05.04.1995 - 22596/93
Only when these two conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Eur. Court H.R., Eckle judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 32, paras. 69 et seq.; No. 10868/84, Dec. 21.1.87, Woukam Moudefo v. France, D.R. 51 p. 62; No. 10884/84, Dec. 13.12.84, H. v. Federal Republic of Germany, D.R. 41 p. 252). - EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85
KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EKMR, 05.04.1995 - 22596/93
The Commission's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (cf. for example Eur. Court H.R., Kostovski judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166).
- EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 6406/21
M.G. v. LITHUANIA
Moreover, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, mitigation of the sentence was an appropriate means of redress for lengthy criminal proceedings (the Supreme Court referred to, among other authorities, Einarsson v. Iceland, no. 22596/93, Commission decision of 5 April 1995; Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001; and Sorvisto v. Finland, no. 19348/04, § 66, 13 January 2009).