Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIDOROVA (ADUKEVICH) v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  This latter means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 62, 15 December 2005, and Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 27, §§ 66-67).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  This latter means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 62, 15 December 2005, and Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 27, §§ 66-67).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  The Court reiterates that, in order for costs and expenses to be awarded under Article 41, it must be established that that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and are reasonable as to quantum (see Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 20289/02

  GUTU v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  The Court notes that the summons was not sent to the applicant by registered mail or in any other traceable manner, and the Government did not indicate why they believed that the applicant had received the summons (see Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 46, 10 February 2005; Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 52, 7 June 2007; Strizhak v. Ukraine, no. 72269/01, § 39, 8 November 2005; and Metelitsa, cited above, § 34).
• EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 69315/01

  SUKHORUBCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  The Court notes that the summons was not sent to the applicant by registered mail or in any other traceable manner, and the Government did not indicate why they believed that the applicant had received the summons (see Sukhorubchenko v. Russia, no. 69315/01, § 46, 10 February 2005; Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 52, 7 June 2007; Strizhak v. Ukraine, no. 72269/01, § 39, 8 November 2005; and Metelitsa, cited above, § 34).
• EGMR, 15.07.2003 - 44671/98

  SIGURÞÓR ARNARSSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  In previous cases the Court has found a violation of the applicant's right to be heard in person in the appeal proceedings, even where the applicant was in fact represented by a defence counsel in the appeal court, but the issues to be determined required his or her personal presence (see, among others, Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, no. 44671/98, §§ 31-38, 15 July 2003; Pobornikoff v. Austria, no. 28501/95, § 29-33, 3 October 2000; and Dondarini, cited above, § 27).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28501/95

  POBORNIKOFF v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 4537/04

  In previous cases the Court has found a violation of the applicant's right to be heard in person in the appeal proceedings, even where the applicant was in fact represented by a defence counsel in the appeal court, but the issues to be determined required his or her personal presence (see, among others, Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, no. 44671/98, §§ 31-38, 15 July 2003; Pobornikoff v. Austria, no. 28501/95, § 29-33, 3 October 2000; and Dondarini, cited above, § 27).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 23377/02

  MOKRUSHINA CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 34 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  4537/04.
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  SINICHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to paragraphs 15-17 above, the Court notes that the jurisdiction of appeal courts in the Russian legal system extends to both issues of facts and law (see also Sidorova (Adukevich) v. Russia, no. 4537/04, § 25, 14 February 2008, and Shulepov, cited above, § 34) and that the Orenburg Regional Court had the power to fully review the case and consider additional arguments which had not been examined at the trial.
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 40962/04

  NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA

  19-26 above, the Court notes that the jurisdiction of appeal courts in the Russian legal system extends to both issues of facts and law (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 100, 2 November 2010; Sidorova (Adukevich) v. Russia, no. 4537/04, § 25, 14 February 2008, and Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 34, 26 June 2008) and that the Supreme Court had the power to fully review the case and consider additional arguments which had not been examined at the trial.
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 11469/05

  [ENG]

  The Court had already noted that the jurisdiction of appeal courts in the Russian legal system extends to both issues of facts and law (see, for example, Sidorova (Adukevich) v. Russia, no. 4537/04, § 25, 14 February 2008, and Shulepov v. Russia, cited above).