Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOMOGYI v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 67972/01
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

Wird zitiert von ... (63)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 39912/98

  DI GIOVINE contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  It observes that it is competent to apply only the European Convention on Human Rights, and that it is not its task to interpret or review compliance with other international conventions as such (see Di Giovine v. Portugal (dec.), no. 39912/98, 31 August 1999, and Hermida Paz v. Spain (dec.), no. 4160/02, 28 January 2003; see also Di Lazzaro v. Italy, no. 31924/96, Commission decision of 10 July 1997, Decisions and Reports 90-B, p. 134 at p. 139).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  EINHORN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  Although proceedings conducted in the absence of the defendant are not in themselves incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice will nevertheless occur where a person convicted in absentia is unable subsequently to obtain from a court which has heard him a fresh determination of the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact, where it has not been unequivocally established that he has waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see Colozza, cited above, p. 15, § 29, and Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 4160/02

  HERMIDA PAZ contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  It observes that it is competent to apply only the European Convention on Human Rights, and that it is not its task to interpret or review compliance with other international conventions as such (see Di Giovine v. Portugal (dec.), no. 39912/98, 31 August 1999, and Hermida Paz v. Spain (dec.), no. 4160/02, 28 January 2003; see also Di Lazzaro v. Italy, no. 31924/96, Commission decision of 10 July 1997, Decisions and Reports 90-B, p. 134 at p. 139).

 
• EKMR, 10.07.1997 - 31924/96

  DI LAZZARO contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  It observes that it is competent to apply only the European Convention on Human Rights, and that it is not its task to interpret or review compliance with other international conventions as such (see Di Giovine v. Portugal (dec.), no. 39912/98, 31 August 1999, and Hermida Paz v. Spain (dec.), no. 4160/02, 28 January 2003; see also Di Lazzaro v. Italy, no. 31924/96, Commission decision of 10 July 1997, Decisions and Reports 90-B, p. 134 at p. 139).
• EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88

  T. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 guarantee to "everyone charged with a criminal offence" the right "to defend himself in person", "to examine or have examined witnesses" and "to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court", and it is difficult to see how he could exercise these rights without being present (see Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 27; T. v. Italy, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, § 26; F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, § 33; see also Belziuk v. Poland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 570, § 37).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  F.C.B. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 guarantee to "everyone charged with a criminal offence" the right "to defend himself in person", "to examine or have examined witnesses" and "to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court", and it is difficult to see how he could exercise these rights without being present (see Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 27; T. v. Italy, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, § 26; F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, § 33; see also Belziuk v. Poland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 570, § 37).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  BROZICEK v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Brozicek v. Italy, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, p. 20, § 48; F.C.B. v. Italy, cited above, p. 22, § 38; and T. v. Italy, cited above, p. 43, § 32).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  The Court considers that, in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see, among many other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, pp. 14-15, § 25 in fine), Article 6 of the Convention imposes on every national court an obligation to check whether the defendant has had the opportunity to apprise himself of the proceedings against him where, as in the instant case, this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit (see, mutatis mutandis, as regards the obligation to check whether a court was "impartial", Remli v. France, judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 574, §§ 47-48).

• BVerfG, 15.12.2015 - 2 BvR 2735/14

  Gewährleistung einzelfallbezogenen Grundrechtsschutzes im Rahmen der …

  Insoweit verpflichtet Art. 6 EMRK jedes nationale Gericht zur Prüfung, ob der Verfolgte Kenntnis vom Verfahren erlangt hat (vgl. EGMR, Somogyi v. Italien, Urteil vom 18. Mai 2004, Nr. 67972/01, § 72).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that in many cases in which it found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because an applicant had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal (see, among other judgments, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003, and Tahir Duran v. Turkey, no. 40997/98, § 23, 29 January 2004), or because of an interference with the right to participate in the trial (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and R.R. v. Italy, no. 42191/02, § 76, 9 June 2005) or with the right to examine prosecution witnesses (see Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 75, 13 October 2005) the Court indicated in Chamber judgments that in principle the most appropriate remedy would be for the applicant to be given a retrial without delay if he or she so requested.
• EGMR, 01.03.2006 - 56581/00

  SEJDOVIC c. ITALIE

  Si une procédure se déroulant en l'absence du prévenu n'est pas en soi incompatible avec l'article 6 de la Convention, il demeure néanmoins qu'un déni de justice est constitué lorsqu'un individu condamné in absentia ne peut obtenir ultérieurement qu'une juridiction statue à nouveau, après l'avoir entendu, sur le bien-fondé de l'accusation en fait comme en droit, alors qu'il n'est pas établi qu'il a renoncé à son droit de comparaître et de se défendre (Colozza précité, § 29, Einhorn c. France (déc.), no 71555/01, § 33, CEDH 2001-XI, Krombach c. France, no 29731/96, § 85, CEDH 2001-II, et Somogyi c. Italie, no 67972/01, § 66, CEDH 2004-IV), ou qu'il a eu l'intention de se soustraire à la justice (Medenica précité, § 55).

 
• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 18114/02

  HERMI c. ITALIE

  In view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see, among many other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 25 in fine, Series A no. 11), Article 6 of the Convention imposes on every national court an obligation to check whether the defendant has had the opportunity to apprise himself of the date of the hearing and the steps to be taken in order to take part where, as in the instant case, this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 72, ECHR 2004-IV).

  "In view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see, among many other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 25 in fine, Series A no. 11), Article 6 of the Convention imposes on every national court an obligation to check whether the defendant has had the opportunity to apprise himself of the date of the hearing and the steps to be taken in order to take part where, as in the instant case, this is disputed on a ground that does not immediately appear to be manifestly devoid of merit (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 72, ECHR 2004-IV).

• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Lastly, the Court does not have to establish whether the product that the applicants wished to use met the requirements of European Union law, and in particular the requirement of Article 83 § 2 of Regulation (EC) no. 726/2004 to be undergoing clinical trials (see paragraphs 10, 45 and 50 above); the Court is competent only to apply the Convention, and it is not its task to review compliance with other international instruments (see Di Giovine v. Portugal (dec.), no. 39912/98, 31 August 1999; Hermida Paz v. Spain (dec.), no. 4160/02, 28 January 2003; Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 62, ECHR 2004-IV; Calheiros Lopes and Others v. Portugal (dec.), no. 69338/01, 3 June 2004; and Böheim v. Italy (dec.), no. 35666/05, 22 May 2007).
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 38228/05

  MAKSIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  As was found above, the proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court's Plenum did not comply with the requirements of fairness, as the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to exercise any of his rights under Article 6. In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the cassation appeal proceedings provided by the Transitional law in due course, in order to guarantee the examination of his appeal in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; and Abbasov. cited above, §§ 41-42).

  In the Shulepov case similar conclusions were reached: "The Court further reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV).

• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

  HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  Taxquet ./. Belgien

  The Court reiterates that, where it finds that an applicant has been convicted after not being afforded one of the safeguards of a fair trial, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, in due course and in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003; Tahir Duran v. Turkey, no. 40997/98, § 23, 29 January 2004; Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-V; and Öcalan c. Turquie [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.05.2016 - C-108/16

  Dworzecki - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …

  28 - Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 12. Oktober 1992, T./Italien, CE:ECHR:1992:1012JUD001410488, § 28, 18. Mai 2004, Somogyi/Italien, CE:ECHR:2004:0518JUD006797201, § 75, und Sejdovic/Italien [GK], § 99.
• EGMR, 05.09.2013 - 61204/09

  I v. SWEDEN

  Article 36 § 1 of the Convention, taken together with Rule 44 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Rules of Court, allows a Member State to intervene in a case lodged with the Court by one of its nationals against another Member State (see, for example, Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, ECHR 2007-I (Russia); Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 6, ECHR 2003-X (Russia); Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, ECHR 2004-IV (Hungary); Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 56581/00

  SEJDOVIC v. ITALY
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08

  INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 46203/08

  TSEBER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07

  PÁKOZDI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 29476/06

  D.M.T. ET D.K.I. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 58478/00

  RUPA c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)
• EGMR, 27.04.2006 - 30961/03

  SANNINO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  JANNATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  LAYIJOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 26073/13

  CAFAGNA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 43095/05

  ALEKSANDR DEMENTYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2012 - 18851/07

  LAGARDÈRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 22926/04

  IORDAN PETROV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 75022/01

  PETYO POPOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 35450/04

  MELICH ET BECK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  AZDAJIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  SANADER v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8460/07

  PIRALI ORUJOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 37193/07

  PARASKEVA TODOROVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 25381/02

  SEYITHAN DEMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 68020/01

  DEMEBUKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47081/06

  M.T.B. v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07

  CONIAC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07

  EFENDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  ABDULGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 38073/06

  MAMMAD MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 5770/05

  SOMOGYI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 30049/02

  YEVGENIY KORNEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 23530/02

  IORDAN IORDANOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA
• OLG Zweibrücken, 18.01.2023 - 1 OAus 3/23

  Hauptverhandlung und Urteilsverkündung in Abwesenheit und Auslieferung des …
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 59743/10

  BYKHOVETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 65400/10

  RIAHI c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 21496/10

  VAN VELZEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 25714/05

  STOYANOV-KOBULADZE v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 26850/11

  KATTAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  SAYD-AKHMED ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 75330/01

  SHARKUNOV AND MEZENTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 14934/03

  POTAPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 15741/03

  VISAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 24632/02

  ÜNSAL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 34839/11

  VYBORNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 665/08

  HAKIMI c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 1993/02

  BALSAN c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 48717/08

  KAREMANI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 26239/09

  GIURGIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 34192/07

  CAT BERRO c. ITALIE