Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 57468/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PANTELEICIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
No violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12
CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 57468/08
The Court therefore considers complaints under Article 6 § 3 under paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 6 taken together (see, inter alia, Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96 and 2 others, § 40, ECHR 2002-VII, with further references and Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 119, 4 April 2018).The minimum rights listed in Article 6 § 3, which exemplify the requirements of a fair trial in respect of typical procedural situations which arise in criminal cases, are not aims in themselves: their intrinsic aim is always to contribute to ensuring the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 251, ECHR 2016 and Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 120, 4 April 2018).
- EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04
Transnistrien
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 57468/08
The Court notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012 and in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 81-95, ECHR 2016. Namely, the applicant and the Moldovan Government submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction, while the Russian Government submitted that they had no jurisdiction. The Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ila??cu and Others (cited above), Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law. - EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05
IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 57468/08
The Court notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012 and in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 81-95, ECHR 2016. Namely, the applicant and the Moldovan Government submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction, while the Russian Government submitted that they had no jurisdiction. The Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ila??cu and Others (cited above), Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law. - EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10
Transnistrien
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 57468/08
The Court notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 83-101, ECHR 2012 and in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 81-95, ECHR 2016. Namely, the applicant and the Moldovan Government submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction, while the Russian Government submitted that they had no jurisdiction. The Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ila??cu and Others (cited above), Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), and Catan and Others (cited above) was wrong and at variance with public international law. - EGMR - 34179/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 57468/08
Once this burden has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact used, or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from this requirement (see, inter alia, Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.