Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1 EMRK; Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG; § 302 StPO
  Recht auf faires Strafverfahren (staatliche Einflussnahme auf die Ausübung der Verteidigungsrechte: unzulässige Willensbeeinflussung, Irreführungsverbot, Zusicherungen, Vertrauensschutz; Schutz des Art. 6 EMRK bezüglich national eröffneter Rechtsmittel; Recht auf Zugang ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARPA ZEELAND B.V. AND METAL WELDING B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARPA ZEELAND B.V. ET METAL WELDING B.V. c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne l'équité de la procédure Violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne la longueur de la procédure Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.10.2002 - 46300/99
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 46300/99
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 46300/99

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 46300/99

  Moreover, appellants must be able to exercise usefully the rights of appeal available to them (see Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, p. 16, § 33).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 46300/99

  Bearing in mind that, in principle, it is not the Court's role to assess itself the facts which have led a national court to adopt one decision rather than another (see Kemmache v. France (no. 3), judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-C, p. 88, § 44), the Court sees no reason to disagree with the Court of Appeal's conclusion.

• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 27103/04

  ALEKSEY PETROV v. BULGARIA

  As regards the complaint (no. 4.4) that the Sofia City Court judgments in the two cases were not amenable to appeal, the Court observes that, according to its established case-law, Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee a right of appeal as such (see, among many other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B, and Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 48 in limine, ECHR 2004-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 21463/08

  MAJCHRÁK v. SLOVAKIA

  Moreover, parties to proceedings must be able to exercise usefully the rights of appeal or other remedies available to them (see Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 252, and Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 48, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 12810/13

  ÇELIK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The right to trial within a reasonable time is one such fundamental guarantee (see, among many other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7; Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 76, Series A no. 51; Motta v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 15, Series A no. 195-A; see also, as examples concerning the same Contracting Party as the present case, Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 23, Series A no. 248-A, and Bunkate v. the Netherlands, 26 May 1993, § 22, Series A no. 248-B; more recently, Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 62, ECHR 2004-X (extracts); and lately, Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 61, ECHR 2007-V (extracts) and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 187, 22 May 2012).

 
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 26524/04

  DIMITAR KRASTEV v. BULGARIA

  The search of the applicant's office on 24 September 1999 may be regarded as the bringing of a criminal charge against him (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, §§ 19 and 133, ECHR 2000-VII; Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 55 in limine, 9 November 2004; and De Clerck v. Belgium, no. 34316/02, § 50, 25 September 2007).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 38082/04

  R. K. gegen Deutschland

  Darüber hinaus müssen Rechtsmittelführer die ihnen zustehenden Beschwerderechte sinnvoll ausüben können (siehe Rechtssachen Hadjianastassiou ./. Griechenland , Urteil vom 16. Dezember 1992, Serie A Bd. 252, S. 16, Randnr. 33, und Marpa Zeeland B.V. und Metal Welding B.V. ./. Niederlande , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 46300/99, Randnr. 48, EGMR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35787/03

  WALCHLI c. FRANCE

  Dès lors, il convient d'examiner la présente affaire sous l'angle du droit à un tribunal uniquement, au sens de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention pris sous son volet pénal (voir, mutatis mutandis, Marpa Zeeland B.V. et Metal Welding B.V. c. Pays-Bas, no 46300/99, § 48, CEDH 2004-X).
• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 15909/13

  VAN DER PUTTEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The right to trial within a reasonable time is one such fundamental guarantee (see, among many other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7; Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 76, Series A no. 51; Motta v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 15, Series A no. 195-A; see also, as examples concerning the same Contracting Party as the present case, Abdoella v. the Netherlands, 25 November 1992, § 23, Series A no. 248-A, and Bunkate v. the Netherlands, 26 May 1993, § 22, Series A no. 248-B; more recently, Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, § 62, ECHR 2004-X (extracts); and lately, Hamer v. Belgium, no. 21861/03, § 61, ECHR 2007-V (extracts) and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 187, 22 May 2012).