Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 25497/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,13033) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75
DEWEER c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 25497/04
At the outset, the Court points out that the guarantees enshrined in paragraph 3 of Article 6 represent specific applications of the general principle stated in paragraph 1 of that Article and for this reason it will examine them together (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 32, Series A no. 37). - EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 25497/04
Moreover, it is not its role to examine the legislation in abstracto, but to consider the manner in which it affected the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28). - EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 25497/04
At the outset, the Court points out that the guarantees enshrined in paragraph 3 of Article 6 represent specific applications of the general principle stated in paragraph 1 of that Article and for this reason it will examine them together (see, among many others, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; and Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 32, Series A no. 37). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 25497/04
The Court reiterates that the circumstances of the present case differ essentially from those examined in Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28871/95, ECHR 2000-VIII), where the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 in so far as the applicant was convicted for the first time by the court of last resort, without being heard by that court about the new classification given to the crimes. - EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96
GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 25497/04
While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain, 19 December 1997, § 31, Reports 1997-VIII and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).