Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVIKAS v. LITHUANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  In regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that in contrario to Lucà v. Italy (no. 33354/96, ECHR 2001-II) the statements made by D.K. and S.N. were not the sole evidence on which the domestic courts' findings were based (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above).

  The Court has nevertheless to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 38, ECHR 2001-II), which in the case of criminal proceedings includes the observance of the presumption of innocence.

• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97

  GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  These fees do not constitute necessary expenses incurred in seeking redress for the violation of the Convention which the Court has found under the "reasonable time" aspect of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, § 74, 10 October 2000).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  The corollary of that, however, is that where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions which have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence may thereby be restricted to an extent which is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Unterpertinger v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, pp. 14-15, §§ 31-33; Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44; Van Mechelen and Others, cited above, § 55).

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  The Court has nevertheless to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29, ECHR 1999-I; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 38, ECHR 2001-II), which in the case of criminal proceedings includes the observance of the presumption of innocence.
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  Consequently, the complaint will be examined under the two provisions taken together (see, among other authorities, Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198; Dalia v. France, 19 February 1998, § 38, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  In the circumstances of the case, the measures taken in that respect may be considered to have been sufficient to enable the applicant to challenge such testimony and its credibility in the course of the criminal proceedings (see mutatis mutandis S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 52, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 16013/02

  CETVERTAKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  Other relevant domestic law concerning domestic remedies for the excessive length of civil proceedings is reproduced in the judgment of Cetvertakas and Others v. Lithuania (no. 16013/02, § 20-22, 20 January 2009).
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 302/05

  NORKUNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 45756/05

  In particular, by a judgment of 6 February 2007, the Supreme Court awarded an individual damages under this provision on account of the excessive length of criminal proceedings which had been instituted in 1998 and discontinued in 2004 (see NorkÅ«nas v. Lithuania, no. 302/05, §§ 26 and 30, 20 January 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 37415/02

  SIMONAVICIUS ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA LITUANIE

  Application No. 45756/05, judgment of 20/04/2010, final on 20/07/2010).

  Novikas (45756/05).

• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 9668/06

  [ENG]

  As to the Government's submission that the applicant company did not exhaust the available domestic remedies to obtain redress for the length of proceedings, the Court recalls its case law to the effect that at the time when the present application was lodged with the Court, no such effective domestic remedies were available in Lithuania (see, most recently, Novikas v. Lithuania, no. 45756/05, § 16, 20 April 2010).