Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAYD-AKHMED ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence in person) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  The Court further refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights 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 the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  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 date of the hearing and the steps to be taken in order to take part where... 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, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  "58. In the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 13, § 33; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 15, § 35; and De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004), and the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005).

• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  In order to decide this question, regard must be had, among other considerations, to the specific features of the proceedings in question and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it (see Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, §§ 31-32) and of their importance to the appellant (see Kremzow, cited above, p. 43, § 59; Kamasinski, cited above, pp. 44-45, § 106 in fine; and Ekbatani, cited above, p. 13, §§ 27-28).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  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 date of the hearing and the steps to be taken in order to take part where... 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, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  "58. In the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 13, § 33; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 15, § 35; and De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004), and the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005).
• KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 26/09

  Kostentragungspflicht des Dienstgebers für die Hinzuziehung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  26/09/2012.
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  even where the court of appeal has jurisdiction to review the case both as to facts and as to law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, still less a right to appear in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, p. 68, § 31).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69264/01

  DE LORENZO contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  "58. In the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 13, § 33; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 15, § 35; and De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004), and the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 34653/04

  The Court considers that the requirement to make such request would not in itself contradict the guarantees of Article 6 if the procedure was clearly set out in the domestic law and complied with by all participants in the proceedings, including the courts (see Sibgatullin v. Russia, no. 32165/02, § 45, 23 April 2009, and Kononov, cited above, § 40).
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04

  KONONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3891/03

  SAMOKHVALOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 17092/04

  [ENG]

  In the case of Sayd-Akhmed Zubayrayev v. Russia (no. 34653/04, §§ 30-31, 26 June 2012) the Court had regard to the domestic practice on the issue and came to the conclusion that the procedure requiring a defendant to request participation in an appeal hearing was not clearly set out in the domestic law.
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 74768/10

  CHERNEGA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In fact, domestic law does not appear to provide any such procedure in administrative offence cases (compare Sayd-Akhmed Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 34653/04, § 31, 26 June 2012, and contrast, for criminal cases, Sobko v. Ukraine, no. 15102/10, § 80, 17 December 2015).
• EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 13810/22

  KUCERA v. AUSTRIA

  The court held that the concerns regarding a potential violation of Article 6 of the Convention were unfounded and referred, in that connection, to a number of judgments of the Court (namely, Sayd-Akhmed Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 34653/04, §§ 27 and 32-33, 26 June 2012; Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 95 and 98, 2 November 2010; Gennadiy Medvedev v. Russia, no. 34184/03, §§ 37-38, 24 April 2012; and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 47017/06

  MAROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already found that the procedure requiring a defendant to lodge a request for participation in an appeal hearing is not clearly set out in the domestic law (see Sayd-Akhmed Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 34653/04, § 31, 26 June 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 9536/10

  FEDORIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found that, in Russian legal system, the absence of the applicant alone, or together with his counsel, from an appeal hearing breached the principle of equality of arms (see, for example, Sibgatullin v. Russia, no. 32165/02, §§ 38-50, 23 April 2009; Sayd-Akhmed Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 34653/04, §§ 27-33, 26 June 2012; and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, §§ 58-73, 14 November 2013).