Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,30297
EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97 (https://dejure.org/2003,30297)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.05.2003 - 37235/97 (https://dejure.org/2003,30297)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Mai 2003 - 37235/97 (https://dejure.org/2003,30297)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,30297) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (67)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

    PADOVANI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
    As to the first test, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (Padovani v. Italy, judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, § 26; and Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001).
  • EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

    VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
    In that connection, it should be noted that, while Article 6 § 1 requires judgments of tribunals adequately to state the reasons on which they are based, the Court is not called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, § 61; and Société anonyme Immeuble Groupe Kosser v. France (dec.), no. 38748/97, 9 March 1999).
  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
    The Court reiterates that the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction and behaviour of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see, among other authorities, Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, § 46; and Thomann v. Switzerland, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 815, § 30).
     
  • EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

    ASCH v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
    Further, the right relied on by a spouse in order to avoid giving evidence cannot be allowed to block the prosecution, the appropriateness of which is, moreover, not for the Court to determine (see, mutatis mutandis, Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, pp. 10-11, § 28).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

    ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
    In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicants" inability to examine Mrs Bistolfi during the review proceedings did not adversely affect the rights of the defence to the point of infringing paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 (P.M. v. Italy (dec.), no. 43625/98, 8 March 2001; Raniolo v. Italy (dec.), no. 62676/00, 21 March 2002; Calabrò v. Italy (dec.), no. 59895/00, 21 March 2002; see also, mutatis mutandis, Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, pp.
  • EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

    LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
    There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence; as a general rule, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statement or at a later stage (Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 23 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 711, § 51; and Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 49).
  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

    HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
    Courts must reply to parties" essential arguments, but the extent to which that duty applies may vary in accordance with the nature of the decision and must therefore be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case (Hiro Balani v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, pp. 29-30, § 27; and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, 28 January 2003).
  • EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

    A.M. v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97
    In particular, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX; and Saïdi v. France judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

    Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

    However, the obligation under Article 35 requires only that an applicant should have normal recourse to the remedies likely to be effective, adequate and accessible (see Sofri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 37235/97, ECHR 2003-VIII).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2006 - 56581/00

    SEJDOVIC c. ITALIE

    Cependant, l'obligation découlant de l'article 35 se limite à celle de faire un usage normal des recours vraisemblablement effectifs, suffisants et accessibles (Sofri et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 37235/97, CEDH 2003-VIII).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 36822/02

    BRACCI c. ITALIE

    La Cour relève qu'en ce qui concerne l'agression subie par X, les déclarations de la victime ne constituaient point le seul élément de preuve sur lequel les juges du fond ont appuyé la condamnation du requérant (voir, mutatis mutandis et parmi beaucoup d'autres, Raniolo c. Italie (déc.), no 62676/00, 21 mars 2002, Sangiorgi c. Italie (déc.), no 70981/01, 5 septembre 2002, Sofri et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 37235/97, CEDH 2003-VIII, De Lorenzo, décision précitée, et Chifari c. Italie (déc.), no 36037/02, 13 mai 2004).

    On peut regretter qu'un test ADN n'ait pas été accompli car ses résultats auraient pu soit confirmer la version de la victime, soit fournir au requérant des éléments substantiels pour entamer la crédibilité de cette version (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sofri et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 37235/97, CEDH 2003-VIII).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht