Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.L. v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23220/04

  Given that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1, it is appropriate to examine the complaint under the two provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Asch v. Austria, 26 April 1991, § 25, Series A no. 203, and A.H. v. Finland, no. 46602/99, § 30, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23220/04

  In the present case, unlike in the cases of S.N. v. Sweden (no. 34209/96, § 49-50, ECHR 2002-V) and B. v. Finland (no. 17122/02, § 44, 24 April 2007), the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to put questions to R. at any stage of the proceedings.
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 23220/04

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (see, inter alia, Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158; W. v. Finland, no. 14151/02, § 43, 24 April 2007; A.H. v. Finland, cited above, § 40).

• BVerfG, 26.02.2018 - 2 BvR 107/18

  Auslieferung an die Schweiz zum Zwecke der Strafvollstreckung (Wahrung des …

  In Sexualstrafverfahren ist es grundsätzlich nicht zu beanstanden, dass eine belastende Zeugenaussage lediglich durch Würdigung der Videoaufnahme einer vorherigen Vernehmung in das Hauptverfahren eingeführt wird, solange die Verteidigung die Möglichkeit hatte, Fragen zu stellen (vgl. EGMR, A.L. v. Finnland, Urteil vom 27. Januar 2009, Nr. 23220/04, § 41 und D. v. Finnland, Urteil vom 7. Juli 2009, Nr. 30542/04, § 50).
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 17354/04

  JAKUBCZYK v. POLAND

  A conviction should not be based either solely or to a decisive extent on statements which the defence has not been able to challenge (see A.L. v. Finland, no. 23220/04, § 37, 27 January 2009).
• EGMR - 20481/11 (anhängig)

  AGEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Did the proceedings against the applicant comply with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) of the Convention (A.S. v. Finland, no. 40156/07, §§ 48-68, 28 September 2010, A.L. v. Finland, no. 23220/04, §§ 35-45, 27 January 2009 and, mutatis mutandis, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 147, ECHR 2011)?.
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  BIELAJ v. POLAND

  A conviction should not be based either solely or to a decisive extent on statements which the defence has not been able to challenge (see A.L. v. Finland, no. 23220/04, § 37, 27 January 2009).