Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1991,11219
EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86 (https://dejure.org/1991,11219)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.08.1991 - 12151/86 (https://dejure.org/1991,11219)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. August 1991 - 12151/86 (https://dejure.org/1991,11219)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1991,11219) 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

    F.C.B. c. ITALIE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 6-1+6-3-c Dommage - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    F.C.B. v. ITALY

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • Serie A Nr. 208-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 ... (58)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

    BROZICEK v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86
    Unlike the Goddi, Colozza and Brozicek cases (judgments of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, and 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167), the present case relates only to the opportunity for a person charged with a criminal offence to attend his trial alongside his counsel.

    The Court considers it unnecessary to decide whether, as the Government maintained, indirect knowledge of the trial date sufficed to allow the applicant to participate in the trial, a right whose existence is, according to the Court's case-law, shown by the object and purpose of Article 6 (art. 6) taken as a whole (see, inter alia, the Brozicek judgment cited above, Series A no. 167, p. 19, para. 45).

  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

    FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86
    In the Foti and Others judgment of 10 December 1982, the Colozza judgment of 12 February 1985 and the Brozicek judgment of 19 December 1989 (Series A no. 56, p. 12, paras. 33-36; no. 89, p. 11, para. 18, and p. 12, paras. 21-22; no. 167, p. 13, para. 26) the Court gave a brief description of the Italian legislation then in force as regards notifications and trials in absentia (contumacia).
  • EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

    GODDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86
    Unlike the Goddi, Colozza and Brozicek cases (judgments of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, and 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167), the present case relates only to the opportunity for a person charged with a criminal offence to attend his trial alongside his counsel.
  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

    As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 (art. 6-3) are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, the F.C.B. v. Italy judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 20, para. 29).

    28; 28 August 1991, previously cited, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, paras.

    A person charged with a criminal offence does not lose the benefit of this right merely on account of not being present at the trial (see the Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 45, para. 99, and, mutatis mutandis, the Goddi judgment previously cited, Series A no. 76, p. 12, para. 30, and the F.C.B. judgment previously cited, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, para. 33).

  • EGMR, 01.03.2006 - 56581/00

    SEJDOVIC c. ITALIE

    Le Gouvernement rappelle que la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 de la Convention dans des affaires où l'absence d'un accusé aux débats était régie par l'ancien code de procédure pénale (Colozza c. Italie, 12 février 1985, série A no 89, T. c. Italie, 12 octobre 1992, série A no 245-C, et F.C.B. c. Italie, 28 août 1991, série A no 208-B).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

    Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

    The Court reiterates that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. The Court will therefore examine the relevant complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 29, Series A no. 208-B; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A; and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011).
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