Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHRABROVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Article 6-1 - Public hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Khrabrova v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 18498/04

  Therefore, the lack of a public hearing before the first-instance court was not remedied on appeal (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, §§ 40-41, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 18498/04

  Article 6 § 1 does not, however, prohibit courts from deciding, in the light of the special features of the case submitted to them, to derogate from this principle: in accordance with the actual wording of this provision, "... the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice"; holding proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera, must be strictly required by the circumstances of the case (see, Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 34, Series A no. 325-A; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-III; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 18160/91

  DIENNET v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 18498/04

  Article 6 § 1 does not, however, prohibit courts from deciding, in the light of the special features of the case submitted to them, to derogate from this principle: in accordance with the actual wording of this provision, "... the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice"; holding proceedings, whether wholly or partly, in camera, must be strictly required by the circumstances of the case (see, Diennet v. France, 26 September 1995, § 34, Series A no. 325-A; B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 39, ECHR 2001-III; and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 18498/04

  While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).

• EGMR, 08.09.2020 - 46232/10

  TIMAKOV AND OOO ID RUBEZH v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court has previously held that given the possible detrimental effects that the lack of a public hearing before the first-instance court could have on the fairness of the proceedings, the absence of publicity could not in any event be remedied by anything other than a complete rehearing before the appellate court (see Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, § 52, 2 October 2012).

  By contrast, where the scope of the appeal proceedings is limited, and in particular where the appellate court cannot review the merits of the case, the public hearing before that court cannot remedy the lack of a public hearing before the lower court (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, § 60, Series A no. 43; Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 36, Series A no. 58; Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 37, ECHR 2000-XII; Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 62, 12 July 2001; Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, § 52, 2 October 2012; Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, § 192).

• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 22367/09

  YURKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  In this respect the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, § 37, 2 October 2012 and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).