Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KART c. TURQUIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KART v. TURKEY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 8917/05
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 8917/05
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

Papierfundstellen

• NJOZ 2011, 619

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  That right is based on the need to ensure that accused persons do not have to remain too long in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of the criminal accusations against them (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 9, and Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7).

  Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 40, Series A no. 9.

• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97

  A. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  The Chamber unanimously found that Article 6 § 1 was applicable, after pointing out that in the cases of A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X), Cordova v. Italy (no. 1) (no. 40877/98, ECHR 2003-I), Cordova v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 45649/99, ECHR 2003-I) and Tsalkitzis v. Greece (no. 11801/04, 16 November 2006) the Court had affirmed the principle of reviewing the compatibility of immunity from prosecution with the right to a court enshrined in Article 6 § 1. Seeing no reason to depart from that approach in this case, which concerned "a criminal charge" against the applicant, the Chamber considered that the procedure at issue fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 (Chamber judgment, §§ 62-63).

  On this subject, however, the Court has already had occasion to say that the application of a rule of absolute parliamentary immunity cannot be said to exceed the margin of appreciation allowed to States in limiting an individual's right of access to a court (A. v. the United Kingdom judgment [GC], 35373/97, 17 December 2002, § 87).

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  From the judgment Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24) to the judgment Errico v. Italy (no. 29768/05, § 30, 24 February 2009).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  That right is based on the need to ensure that accused persons do not have to remain too long in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of the criminal accusations against them (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 9, and Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 18, Series A no. 7).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 59, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 40877/98

  CORDOVA c. ITALIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  The Chamber unanimously found that Article 6 § 1 was applicable, after pointing out that in the cases of A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X), Cordova v. Italy (no. 1) (no. 40877/98, ECHR 2003-I), Cordova v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 45649/99, ECHR 2003-I) and Tsalkitzis v. Greece (no. 11801/04, 16 November 2006) the Court had affirmed the principle of reviewing the compatibility of immunity from prosecution with the right to a court enshrined in Article 6 § 1. Seeing no reason to depart from that approach in this case, which concerned "a criminal charge" against the applicant, the Chamber considered that the procedure at issue fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 (Chamber judgment, §§ 62-63).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 45649/99

  CORDOVA v. ITALY (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  The Chamber unanimously found that Article 6 § 1 was applicable, after pointing out that in the cases of A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X), Cordova v. Italy (no. 1) (no. 40877/98, ECHR 2003-I), Cordova v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 45649/99, ECHR 2003-I) and Tsalkitzis v. Greece (no. 11801/04, 16 November 2006) the Court had affirmed the principle of reviewing the compatibility of immunity from prosecution with the right to a court enshrined in Article 6 § 1. Seeing no reason to depart from that approach in this case, which concerned "a criminal charge" against the applicant, the Chamber considered that the procedure at issue fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 (Chamber judgment, §§ 62-63).
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 11801/04

  TSALKITZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 8917/05

  The Chamber unanimously found that Article 6 § 1 was applicable, after pointing out that in the cases of A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35373/97, ECHR 2002-X), Cordova v. Italy (no. 1) (no. 40877/98, ECHR 2003-I), Cordova v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 45649/99, ECHR 2003-I) and Tsalkitzis v. Greece (no. 11801/04, 16 November 2006) the Court had affirmed the principle of reviewing the compatibility of immunity from prosecution with the right to a court enshrined in Article 6 § 1. Seeing no reason to depart from that approach in this case, which concerned "a criminal charge" against the applicant, the Chamber considered that the procedure at issue fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 (Chamber judgment, §§ 62-63).

• BGH, 14.10.2015 - 1 StR 56/15

  Fall Mollath: Revision des Angeklagten als unzulässig verworfen

  Art. 6 MRK garantiert bereits nicht das Recht auf ein bestimmtes Ergebnis eines Strafverfahrens, etwa nicht auf Verurteilung oder Freispruch wegen einer angeklagten Straftat (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 26. August 2003 - 59493/00 - Withey/Vereinigtes Königreich; Urteil vom 3. Dezember 2009 ? 8917/05 ? Kart/Türkei, NJOZ 2011, 619, 621).
• EuGH, 18.06.2020 - C-831/18

  Kommission/ RQ

  In diesem Sinne hat auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in einem Urteil zur parlamentarischen Immunität festgestellt, dass die Frage, wie sich die Anwendung dieser Immunität auf die Rechte des Betroffenen auswirkt, im Hinblick auf die Erfordernisse der Wahrung des institutionellen Zwecks der Immunität zu beurteilen ist (EGMR, 3. Dezember 2009, Kart/Türkei, CE:ECHR:2009:1203JUD000891705, § 95).