Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  H. v. SWEDEN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.06.1992 - 15260/89

  The Commission also recalls that the reasoning in a decision or judgment forms a whole with, and cannot be dissociated from, the operative provisions (Eur. Court H.R., Adolf judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, p. 18, para. 39).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.06.1992 - 15260/89

  2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention may be violated if a judicial decision amounts in substance to a determination of the accused person's guilt without that person having previously been proved guilty according to law and in particular without his having had an opportunity to exercise the rights of the defence (Eur. Court H.R., Minelli judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, p. 18, para. 37; mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Lutz/Englert/Nölkenbockhoff judgments of 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123, p. 25, para. 60, pp. 54-55, para. 37, and p. 79, para. 37, respectively).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.06.1992 - 15260/89

  Without going into the national courts' assessment of this evidence (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Kostovski judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, p. 19, para. 39, with further references), the Commission finds that the District Court's impugned findings can be considered to be a relevant part of the Court's evaluation of the evidence presented in the case against the applicant.

• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 48144/09

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung durch eine gerichtliche Schuldfeststellung, die …

  Therefore, the Convention organs had to examine the reasoning of the domestic court's decision in the light of the presumption of innocence despite the fact that the indictment was rejected (see Adolf v. Austria, 26 March 1982, §§ 38-39, Series A no. 49, in respect of the reasons given for a decision to close criminal proceedings for insignificance of the accused's fault; and T.H. v. Sweden, no. 15260/89, Commission decision of 29 June 1992, in respect of reasons given in a judgment acquitting the accused).