Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,50096
EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,50096)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.02.2007 - 64140/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,50096)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Februar 2007 - 64140/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,50096)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,50096) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 119-20, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 31657/96

    BUSCARINI contre SAINT-MARIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    There is nothing in the case file to suggest that by joining two sets of criminal proceedings in the applicant's case, the domestic investigative authorities and courts acted in flagrant disregard of the applicable domestic laws governing their jurisdiction and procedures (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, §§ 98-99, ECHR 2000-VII; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000).
  • EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

    COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    There is nothing in the case file to suggest that by joining two sets of criminal proceedings in the applicant's case, the domestic investigative authorities and courts acted in flagrant disregard of the applicable domestic laws governing their jurisdiction and procedures (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, §§ 98-99, ECHR 2000-VII; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002; and Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000).
  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97

    ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    (b) As to the applicant's complaint about the questioning and disqualification of counsel A.M. on 30 October 1999, the Court recalls that whilst it is true that Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) guarantee to everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to represent himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, this right, as the Court has ruled on several occasions, is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions (see, for example, Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B, § 29, and Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    All orders argued against the applicant's release as some of the investigative actions, including interviews of witnesses and possible victims of the applicant's criminal activities, were not yet complete (see, by contrast, Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 62, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

    HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    Finally, as to the participation of judge G. who had previously presided in the proceedings on the applicant's detention on 13 September 2000 in the Supreme Court's examination of his appeal against the judgment of 14 July 2000, the Court recalls that the participation of a judge in decisions on pre-trial detention may indeed in certain circumstances cast doubt on his impartiality (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, §§ 49-53).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

    ASCH v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    Thus, the use of statements obtained at earlier stages of proceedings is not in itself inconsistent with paragraphs 3 (d) and 1 of Article 6 of the Convention, provided that the rights of the defence have been respected (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 27, and Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, §§ 34-37).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

    DELTA c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    Thus, the use of statements obtained at earlier stages of proceedings is not in itself inconsistent with paragraphs 3 (d) and 1 of Article 6 of the Convention, provided that the rights of the defence have been respected (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, § 27, and Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, §§ 34-37).
  • EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

    Klaus Croissant

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    (b) As to the applicant's complaint about the questioning and disqualification of counsel A.M. on 30 October 1999, the Court recalls that whilst it is true that Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) guarantee to everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to represent himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, this right, as the Court has ruled on several occasions, is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions (see, for example, Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B, § 29, and Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

    VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2007 - 64140/00
    (d) In so far as the applicant complained that the domestic courts had refused to call certain witnesses on his behalf and generally failed to examine his case properly, the Court recalls that Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require as such the attendance and examination of every witness on the behalf of an accused and a court is justified in refusing to summon witnesses whose statements could not be of any relevance in the case (see, for example, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, § 33).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

    Brandstetter ./. Österreich

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht