Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03, 39053/03, 2469/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,34748
EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03, 39053/03, 2469/04 (https://dejure.org/2016,34748)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.10.2016 - 37037/03, 39053/03, 2469/04 (https://dejure.org/2016,34748)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Oktober 2016 - 37037/03, 39053/03, 2469/04 (https://dejure.org/2016,34748)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,34748) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (7)Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77
    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
    The public might be excluded from a trial for security reasons (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 34, ECHR 2000-XII, and Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 88, Series A no. 80).

    There is a high expectation of publicity in ordinary criminal proceedings, which may well concern dangerous individuals, notwithstanding the attendant security problems (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 87, Series A no. 80).

  • EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77
    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
    By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to fulfilling the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III, and Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71).
  • EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

    B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
    Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III, with further references).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

    DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
    Therefore, the Government are prevented from developing those reasons before the Court (see, in the context of reasons for detention on remand, Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 46, 2 March 2006).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 33203/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
    The date of the receipt of the forms by the Court is immaterial (see Kemevuako v. the Netherlands, no. 65938/09, § 19, 1 June 2010, and Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia, no. 33203/08, § 46, 12 June 2014).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 65938/09

    KEMEVUAKO v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
    The date of the receipt of the forms by the Court is immaterial (see Kemevuako v. the Netherlands, no. 65938/09, § 19, 1 June 2010, and Biblical Centre of the Chuvash Republic v. Russia, no. 33203/08, § 46, 12 June 2014).
  • EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 54645/00

    OSINGER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 37037/03
    The Court considers that the finding of a violation should suffice (see Osinger v. Austria, no. 54645/00, § 58, 24 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 10271/12

    KILIN v. RUSSIA

    37037/03 and 2 others, §§ 22-23, 25 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

    TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

    A mere reference to "exceptional circumstances" cannot suffice as a reason to circumvent a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention - namely, that a court hearing must be held in public (see, mutatis mutandis, Chaushev and Others v. Russia, nos. 37037/03 and 2 others, § 22, 25 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 30373/13

    MRAOVIC v. CROATIA

    The Court has further held that holding proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera, must be strictly required by the circumstances of the case (see Welke and Białek v. Poland, no. 15925/05, § 74, 1 March 2011) and that domestic courts are requested to provide reasons for closing the trial to the public (see Chaushev and Others v. Russia, nos. 37037/03, 39053/03, 2469/04, § 24, 25 October 2016.
  • EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 81518/12

    SERGEY BIBIN v. AZERBAIJAN

    By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to fulfilling the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 102, 3 April 2014, and Chaushev and Others v. Russia, nos. 37037/03 and 2 others, § 22, 25 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 42301/11

    MASLENNIKOV v. RUSSIA

    Article 6 § 1 does not prohibit courts from deciding, in the light of the special features of the case submitted to them, to derogate from this principle: in accordance with the actual wording of this provision, "... the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice"; holding proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera must be strictly required by the circumstances of the case (ibid.; see Chaushev and Others v. Russia, nos. 37037/03 and 2 others, § 23, 25 October 2016).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 26129/09

    CHAKHMAKHCHYAN AND OGANESYAN v. RUSSIA

    The Court has set out a test of strict necessity (appropriateness) whatever the justification advanced for excluding the public from a trial (see Chaushev and Others v. Russia, nos. 37037/03 and 2 others, § 24, 25 October 2016, and Yam v. the United Kingdom, no. 31295/11, §§ 54-55, 16 January 2020).
  • EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 11297/09

    DADASHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

    There is a high expectation of publicity in ordinary criminal proceedings, which may well concern dangerous individuals, notwithstanding the attendant security problems (see Chaushev and Others v. Russia, nos. 37037/03 and 2 others, § 22, 25 October 2016, with further references).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht