Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 24.09.1992 | EGMR, 27.03.1992

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1992,13819
EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86 (https://dejure.org/1992,13819)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.04.1992 - 12351/86 (https://dejure.org/1992,13819)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. April 1992 - 12351/86 (https://dejure.org/1992,13819)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,13819) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • Serie A Nr. 235-B
 
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 ... (334)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

    BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
    The Government maintained that in the present case there were no "exceptional circumstances" which might prompt the Court to conclude, in accordance with its own case-law (see the Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89), that the failure to hear the witnesses in question had been incompatible with Article 6 (art. 6).

    3 (d) (art. 6-3-d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the "autonomous" sense given to that word in the Convention system (see, as the most recent authority, the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 25); it "does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as is indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is a full "equality of arms" in the matter" (see the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 38-39, para. 91, and the above-mentioned Bricmont v. Belgium judgment, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).

    There are exceptional circumstances which could prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6 (art. 6)..." (judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).

  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

    DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
    The concept of "equality of arms" does not, however, exhaust the content of paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 (art. 6-3-d), nor that of paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of which this phrase represents one application among many others (see, inter alia, the Delcourt v. Belgium judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 15, para. 28, and the Isgrò v. Italy judgment of 21 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, pp. 11-12, para. 31).
  • EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

    BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
    As a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce (see, inter alia, the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, para. 68).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

    ASCH v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
    3 (d) (art. 6-3-d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the "autonomous" sense given to that word in the Convention system (see, as the most recent authority, the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 25); it "does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as is indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is a full "equality of arms" in the matter" (see the Engel and Others v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 38-39, para. 91, and the above-mentioned Bricmont v. Belgium judgment, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).
  • EGMR, 26.02.2004 - 74969/01

    Görgülü ./. Deutschland: Verweigerung des Sorgerechts und Umgangsrechts mit dem …

    Außerdem ist es generell Sache der innerstaatlichen Gerichte, das ihnen vorliegende Beweismaterial zu würdigen und zu entscheiden, ob die von den Beklagten angebotenen Beweise entscheidungserheblich sind (siehe Urteil Vidal ./. Belgien vom 22. April 1992, Serie A Band 235-B, S. 32, Nr. 33, Elshoz, a.a.O., Nr. 66, M.C. ./. Finnland (Entscheidung), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28460/95, 25. Januar 2001).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

    Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Aufgabe des Gerichtshofs ist es jedoch zu prüfen, ob der Grundsatz der Waffengleichheit durch die Beweisaufnahme und Beweiswürdigung verletzt worden ist und das Verfahren daher als Ganzes unfair war (siehe u. a. Vidal ./. Belgien , Urteil vom 22. April 1992, Serie A Band 235, S. 32-33, Rdnr. 33; und Heidegger ./. Österreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 27077/95, 5. Oktober 1999).
  • EuGH, 15.10.2002 - C-238/99

    Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (LVM) / Kommission

    DSM hat geltend gemacht, durch das beanstandete Verhalten sei auch gegen Artikel 6 EMRK verstoßen worden, der zwar keine speziellen Vorschriften über die Erlangung und Verwendung von Beweismitteln enthalte, aber nicht an der Prüfung hindere, ob ein Verfahren als Ganzes einschließlich der Art und Weise der Beweiserhebung fair abgelaufen sei (EGMR, Urteile Kostovski vom 20. November 1989, Serie A Nr. 166, § 39, Vidal vom 22. April 1992, Serie A Nr. 235 B, § 33, und Edwards vom 16. Dezember 1992, Serie A Nr. 247 B, § 34).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1992,18267
EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18267)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.09.1992 - 11613/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18267)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. September 1992 - 11613/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18267)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,18267) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KOLOMPAR c. BELGIQUE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Non-violation de l'Art. 5-1 Non-violation de l'Art. 5-4 (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KOLOMPAR v. BELGIUM

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) No violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

  • juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • Serie A Nr. 235-C
 
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 ... (30)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85
    The Court has jurisdiction to examine it, although the Delegate of the Commission argued to the contrary (see, as the most recent authority, the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 33, para. 77).
  • EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

    SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85
    4 (art. 5-4), in particular in extradition cases (see the Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, pp. 16-22, paras. 42-61).
  • EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87

    PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85
    However, as the defendant in those proceedings, the Belgian State had contested the jurisdiction of the President of the Brussels First-Instance Court (above-mentioned memorial, paragraph 5, fourth sub-paragraph); they cannot put to the Court arguments which are inconsistent with the position they adopted before the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis, the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, pp. 21-22, para. 47).
  • EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 22414/93

    CHAHAL c. ROYAUME-UNI

    1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) (see the Quinn v. France judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 19, para. 48, and also the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 55, para. 36).

    Moreover, what is in issue here is not, as in the Kolompar v. Belgium case (judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C), an instance of extradition requested by another State with respect to a prison sentence of several years, but rather an order made by the respondent State for the deportation of a person who, as is stated in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment, had been convicted there of only two minor offences, convictions that had since been quashed.

    As regards decisions on Article 5 (art. 5) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the case of Kolompar v. Belgium (judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 64, para. 68), the Commission delivered the following opinion on an extradition problem, which can be transposed to deportation cases:.

  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05

    A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    In particular, it is not open to a Government to put to the Court arguments which are inconsistent with the position they adopted before the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, § 47, Series A no. 222; Kolompar v. Belgium, judgment of 24 September 1992, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 235-C).
  • EGMR, 25.06.1996 - 19776/92

    AMUUR v. FRANCE

    They could not therefore "validly complain of a situation which they had largely created", as the Court itself had held in the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992 (Series A no. 235-C).
     
  • EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

    OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

    Moreover, it considers that the Government are precluded from making submissions as regards preliminary exceptions which are inconsistent with concessions previously made in their pleadings before the Commission (see, mutatis mutandis, the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, pp. 21-22, para. 47, and the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, para. 32).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

    CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

    La Cour constate que cette détention provisoire et la détention des requérants aux fins de la procédure d'extradition se sont chevauchées en partie (Kolompar c. Belgique, arrêt du 24 septembre 1992, série A no 235-C, et Scott c. Espagne, arrêt du 18 décembre 1996, Recueil 1996-VI).
  • EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 23885/94

    FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEY

    In addition, as the Court has already noted, section 108 of the Law on the regulation of political parties provides "[a] resolution by the competent body of a political party dissolving that party after an application for its dissolution has been lodged shall not prevent the proceedings before the Constitutional Court continuing or deprive any dissolution order that is made of its legal effects." It therefore follows that as domestic law provides that a voluntarily dissolved political party remains in existence for the purposes of dissolution by the Constitutional Court, the Government cannot contend before the Court that ÖZDEP was no longer in existence when the dissolution order was made (see, mutatis mutandis , the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, § 32 and the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A 246-A, p. 22, § 42).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

    REFAH PARTISI (PARTI DE LA PROSPERITE) ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    In the Court's view, the applicants cannot derive argument from the fact that Refah's leaders were never convicted of acts contrary to the principle of secularism when such acts are no longer punishable offences in Turkey, a development which the applicants themselves called for and argued in favour of at the time when the law was changed (see, mutatis mutandis, the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, pp. 21-22, § 47, and the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, § 32).
  • EGMR, 04.08.1999 - 31464/96

    DOUIYEB v. THE NETHERLANDS

    The Court recalls that the mere fact that the Court has found no breach of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not mean that it is dispensed from carrying out a review of compliance with paragraph 4; the two paragraphs are separate provisions and observance of the former does not necessarily entail observance of the latter (see the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 57, § 45).
  • EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 50012/08

    M.S. c. BELGIQUE

    Il estime que les principes énoncés par la Cour dans l'affaire A. et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC] (no 3455/05, 19 février 2009) s'appliquent mutatis mutandis en l'espèce et que, comme dans le cas de ces requérants, rien n'indique que les autorités belges aient eu la perspective réaliste de l'expulser pendant la période où il fut détenu en centre fermé sans l'exposer à un risque réel de traitements contraires à l'article 3, ni qu'elles aient entamé la moindre démarche s'inscrivant dans le cadre d'une « procédure d'expulsion en cours menée avec la diligence requise'(Kolompar c. Belgique, 24 septembre 1992, § 36, série A no 235-C).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 13229/03

    SAADI c. ROYAUME-UNI

    In the case of Kolompar, it accepted that the applicant's detention was in principle justified under Article 5 § 1 (f) where an extradition request had been made and the applicant was no longer detained under Article 5 § 1(a) or (c) (Kolompar v. Belgium, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, § 36).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 41416/08

    M. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 4691/06

    JUSIC c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 56005/10

    FIROZ MUNEER c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 41923/06

    ARIBAUD c. LUXEMBOURG

  • EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

    RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 58302/10

    G.K. c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

    RUSTAMOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 56811/00

    AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 48068/06

    NOVIK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 53468/99

    MORA DO VALE et AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21335/93

    SCOTT v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 64117/00

    GUALA contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 14160/08

    DOLINSKIY v. ESTONIA

  • EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 53652/00

    RAF c. ESPAGNE

  • EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 33715/96

    DRAYER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28021/95

    KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28022/95

    SINGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28023/95

    SINGH VIRK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 10.02.1993 - 16714/90

    KOSE v. AUSTRIA

  • EKMR, 25.10.1996 - 32025/96

    KAREEM v. SWEDEN

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.03.1992 - 11683/85   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1992,18663
EGMR, 27.03.1992 - 11683/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18663)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.03.1992 - 11683/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18663)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. März 1992 - 11683/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18663)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,18663) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • Serie A Nr. 235-A
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