Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUURIPAA v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02
• EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 43151/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  A waiver can be explicit or tacit, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263).
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  A waiver can be explicit or tacit, in the latter case for example by refraining from submitting or maintaining a request for a hearing (see, among other authorities, Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A; and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 58, Series A no. 263).

• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  However, the absence of a hearing before a second or third instance may be justified by the special features of the proceedings at issue, provided a hearing has been held at first instance (see Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 36, Series A no. 212-A).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  Regard must be had in assessing this question to, inter alia, the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests are presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it and their importance for the applicant (Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; and Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 268-B).
• EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  A hearing may not be necessary, for example when it raises no questions of fact or law which cannot be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file and the parties' written observations (see, inter alia, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97, § 34, 12 November 2002; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 34, 12 November 2002; and mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 283-A; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 44, Series A no. 312; and Elo v. Finland, no. 30742/02, § 35, 26 September 2006).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  A hearing may not be necessary, for example when it raises no questions of fact or law which cannot be adequately resolved on the basis of the case file and the parties' written observations (see, inter alia, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Lundevall v. Sweden, no. 38629/97, § 34, 12 November 2002; Salomonsson v. Sweden, no. 38978/97, § 34, 12 November 2002; and mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2), 23 February 1994, §§ 21-22, Series A no. 283-A; Fischer v. Austria, 26 April 1995, § 44, Series A no. 312; and Elo v. Finland, no. 30742/02, § 35, 26 September 2006).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  In order to decide on this question, regard must be had to the nature of the Finnish appeal system, to the scope of the Supreme Court's powers and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the Supreme Court particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it (see, mutatis mutandis, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 28, Series A no. 34).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.02.2005 - 12/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  12/04/2010.
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 44671/98

  SIGURÞÓR ARNARSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  Even though the applicant was given an opportunity to reply to the public prosecutor's renewed claims and he was at all times legally represented in the appeal proceedings, he or his counsel did not have at any point of the proceedings a possibility, either in writing or orally, to react to the fact that the Supreme Court was going to convict the applicant and to sentence him (see mutatis mutandis Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, no. 44671/98, § 36, 15 July 2003; and Igual Coll v. Spain, no. 37496/04, § 37, 10 March 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen