Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-b - Preparation of defence) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) No violation of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (45)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  The Court reiterates that the guarantees contained in Article 6 § 3, including those enunciated in sub-paragraph (d), are constituent elements, amongst others, of the concept of a fair trial set forth in Article 6 § 1 (see Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, § 29, Series A no. 92).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  In particular, "as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce... Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses" (see Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, pp. 32-33, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 77018/01

  POLYAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  The Court further notes that the Osijek County Court, as the appeal court, elaborated in detail why there was no need to recall the expert witness (see paragraph 18 above; and the Polyakov v. Russia, no. 77018/01, § 35, 29 January 2009).

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  In this respect, the Court recalls that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective; this is particularly so in respect of the rights of the defence in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial, from which they derive (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  When assessing whether the accused had adequate time for the preparation of his defence, particular regard has to be had to the nature of the proceedings, as well as the complexity of the case and stage of the proceedings (see X. v. Belgium, no. 7628/76, Commission decision of 9 May 1977, Decisions and Reports (DR) 9, p. 172, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 41, Series A no. 58).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10

  BRUNNER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  10/10/2012.
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the ability to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 78, 20 January 2005; Connolly v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27245/95, 26 June 1996; Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 220, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
• EKMR, 07.05.1985 - 10626/83

  KELLY v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  Finally, it should ensure the possibility of ascertaining the facts of the case before the chance to do so fades away, making a fair examination of the question at issue next to impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205, and Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002).
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 77116/01

  BAYBORA and OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  Finally, it should ensure the possibility of ascertaining the facts of the case before the chance to do so fades away, making a fair examination of the question at issue next to impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205, and Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002).
• EKMR, 09.05.1977 - 7628/76

  X. v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 5010/04

  VON HOFFEN v. LIECHTENSTEIN
• EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 27245/95

  CONNOLLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 33951/05

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 1586/15

  ROOK v. GERMANY

  Der Gerichtshof ist überzeugt, dass es angesichts der Komplexität des in Rede stehenden Strafverfahrens (siehe Gregačević./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 58331/09, Rdnr. 53, 10. Juli 2012) nicht erforderlich war, dem Verteidiger des Beschwerdeführers die Gelegenheit zu geben, jedes einzelne Element der Telekommunikationsüberwachungsdaten anzuhören bzw. zu lesen.
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  In this regard the Court emphasises that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, ECHR 2016), since they are not only combined in the same Article, but also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 35, 10 July 2012, and the references cited therein).
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07

  Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"

  The right to a fair trial holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that there can be no justification for interpreting the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention restrictively (see Moreira de Azevedo v. Portugal, 23 October 1990, § 66, Series A no. 189, and Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 49, 10 July 2012).

• EGMR, 08.10.2024 - 5584/24

  JASARI v. CROATIA

  In several of its judgments and decisions, the [European Court of Human Rights] has accepted that applicants who have used the request for extraordinary review of a final judgment for the reasons for which that legal remedy may be used have properly exhausted the legal remedies (see Kovač v. Croatia (dec.), no. 503/05, 12 July 2007; Maresti v. Croatia, cited above, §§ 25-28; Dolenec v. of Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 199, 26 November 2009; Šebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, § 245, 28 June 2011; Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 40, 10 July 2012; and Lambaša v. Croatia (dec.), no. 37738/12, § 16, 12 June 2018).

  Rn. 34 At this juncture, the Court notes that in cases in respect of Croatia, it has already held that where a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment was made on one of the statutory grounds under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings following the request were decisive for the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant and thus fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Maresti v. Croatia, no. 55759/07, § 28, 25 June 2009; Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 199, 26 November 2009; and Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 39, 10 July 2012).

• EGMR, 01.09.2026 - 26602/25
  When assessing whether the accused had adequate time for the preparation of his defence, particular regard has to be had to the nature of the proceedings, as well as the complexity of the case and stage of the proceedings (see Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 51, 10 July 2012 and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 41, Series A no. 58).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11

  [ENG]

  Therefore, it is even possible that a procedural situation which does not place a party at any disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent still represents a violation of the right to adversarial proceedings if the party concerned did not have an opportunity to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence adduced or observations filed, with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Krcmár and Others, cited above, §§ 38-46; and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 50, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 23608/16

  PETROVY v. RUSSIA

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B; G.B. v. France, cited above, § 59, and, more recently, Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 63, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  ULEMEK v. CROATIA and 5 other applications

  The Court further reiterates that the requirement contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely interrelated with the requirement of compliance with the six-month period, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such correlation (see Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 35, 10 July 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 13769/15

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Application no. 58331/09 and the judgment delivered by the Court on 10 July 2012.

  On 10 July 2012, in the case of Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, the Court found that in the criminal proceedings against the applicant before the Osijek Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Osijeku) there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention in that he had not been given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (see Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, §§ 49-58, 10 July 2012).

• EGMR, 23.11.2017 - 47074/12

  GRBA v. CROATIA

  It rejected the Government's argument stressing that, in view of the relevant constitutional arrangement under section 62 of the Constitutional Court Act, the fact that an applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing his request for extraordinary review of a final judgment and awaited the resolution of the case by the Constitutional Court, could not be held against him in the calculation of the six-month time-limit (see, for instance, Gregačević v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, §§ 41-42, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 40429/14

  BOSAK v. CROATIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 88/05

  DANILOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  LONIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 3021/14

  SEKERIJA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2024 - 1618/18

  SOUROULLAS KEY AND ZANETTOS v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 45512/11

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 37963/15

  MINTKEN AND AYDIN v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 17716/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 57642/12

  KIKABIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14

  HODZIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 12047/05

  KUVEYDAR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.10.2016 - 27866/10

  TER-SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 51355/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.12.2025 - 39321/19

  BOIVIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 65513/14

  KLOKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 20837/18

  LUCA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18550/13

  MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 3571/09

  ASATRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11

  KARDOS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  PAVLOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2026 - 43274/16

  SELAMI c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 74272/17

  MICIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 24654/19

  ÇAKIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 73553/16

  TONCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 55951/16

  IANNINI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 23.03.2021 - 53561/17

  MIKOLIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 1837/10

  AVAGYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 14078/12

  DADAYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 15477/14

  SMICKOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 44231/10

  PETROVAI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 73009/13

  GRADINSCAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR - 2700/24 (anhängig)

  LA MANNA v. ITALY
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 71585/17

  MARTINEZ ALMAGRO c. ESPAGNE