Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HODZIC v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HODZIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 28932/14

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14

  The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts" assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, ECHR 2017 (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14

  In the context of the decisions leading to an applicant's internment in a psychiatric hospital, and in view of the similarity of procedural guarantees under Article 6 § 1 and those under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 232, ECHR 2012, and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 66, ECHR 2008), the Court finds it salutary to refer to its case-law under Article 5 according to which it is primarily for the domestic courts to assess the scientific quality of different psychiatric opinion and in that respect they have a certain margin of appreciation.
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14

  In the context of the decisions leading to an applicant's internment in a psychiatric hospital, and in view of the similarity of procedural guarantees under Article 6 § 1 and those under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 232, ECHR 2012, and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 66, ECHR 2008), the Court finds it salutary to refer to its case-law under Article 5 according to which it is primarily for the domestic courts to assess the scientific quality of different psychiatric opinion and in that respect they have a certain margin of appreciation.

 
• EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 62960/00

  ANTOINE contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14

  In some cases concerning the proceedings for involuntary placement of mentally ill offenders in the psychiatric hospital, the Court did not consider that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applied under its criminal head (see Antoine v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62960/00, ECHR 2003, and Kerr v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 63356/00, 23 September 2003).
• EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 63356/00

  KERR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14

  In some cases concerning the proceedings for involuntary placement of mentally ill offenders in the psychiatric hospital, the Court did not consider that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applied under its criminal head (see Antoine v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62960/00, ECHR 2003, and Kerr v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 63356/00, 23 September 2003).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14

  The fact that Article 5 is inapplicable does not present an obstacle to the applicability of Article 6 of the Convention to the proceedings concerning issues of personal liberty in the present case (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2005-XII, and Lazoroski, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 13566/06

  Anwendung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren in Rechtsmittelverfahren …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14

  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention places the courts under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see, for instance, Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen v. Finland, no. 13566/06, § 33, 22 September 2009, and cases cited therein).

• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07

  Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"

  The Court reiterates that where the defence insists on the court hearing a witness or taking other evidence (such as an expert report, for instance), it is for the domestic courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to accept that evidence for examination at the trial (see S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 44, ECHR 2002-V, with further references to Bricmont, cited above, § 89, and Hod?¾ic v. Croatia, no. 28932/14, §§ 61-62, 4 April 2019).
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 34690/21

  PANAET c. ROUMANIE

  S'agissant du rejet des demandes de la requérante tendant à ordonner un supplément d'expertise ou à auditionner l'expert, l'exigence d'un procès équitable n'impose pas à un tribunal l'obligation d'ordonner une expertise ou toute autre mesure d'instruction du seul fait qu'une partie l'a demandée (Hod?¾ic c. Croatie, no 28932/14, § 61, 4 avril 2019).