Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOIMENOV v. \

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (applicant) Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (members of the applicant's family) Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  In so far as the applicant's complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence in this respect and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, it is not within its province to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, 29, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  It requires a "fair balance" between the parties: each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case under conditions that do not place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their opponent or opponents (see Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 56, ECHR 2004-III and the references cited therein).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).

 
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  According to the Court's established case-law, the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and as a general rule it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see the Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  What is decisive is whether the doubts raised by appearances can be held objectively justified (see Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, § 44).
• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  As stated in the Court's case-law, it is easily understandable that doubts should arise, especially in the mind of an accused, as to the neutrality of an expert when it was his/her report that in fact prompted the bringing of a prosecution (see Bönisch v. Austria, judgment of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, § 32).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  The national courts did not rely on any evidence or statements given by anonymous sources such as informants or agents provocateurs (see a contrario, Kostovski v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, § 44; and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, § 38).

• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 926/08

  KARELIN v. RUSSIA

  In the context of the principle of equality of arms, in the case of Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 17995/02, §§ 40-42, 5 April 2007) the Court also referred to "appearances" when concluding that an opinion submitted by the Forensic Science Bureau, a State agency, was akin to incriminating evidence used by the prosecution and that the refusal of an alternative expert examination and the applicant's inability to challenge the Bureau's report in the circumstances of that case had resulted in a violation of the equality of arms (see also Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 65-67, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10

  MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA

  In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19

  GAGGL v. AUSTRIA

  In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014, and Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007).

 
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 66616/10

  KOHEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court does not discern any exceptional circumstances which would have required the trial court to obtain a fresh expert opinion (see, by contrast, Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, 5 April 2007).
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  In certain circumstances, refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, § 38 et seq., 5 April 2007, and Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 25248/05

  NAUMOSKI v.

  However, in the absence of any supporting document the Court is unable to assess which costs were incurred in order to seek prevention or redress before the national courts of the violation found on that ground (see, a contrario, Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, § 56, 5 April 2007).
• EGMR - 36578/22 (anhängig)

  BAZINA v. CROATIA and 1 other applications

  (a) did they have an opportunity to effectively challenge the findings of the Ministry of the Interior's forensics centre's experts as to the cause of the train accident (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 and 41-42, 5 April 2007; Hod?¾ic v. Croatia, no. 28932/14, §§ 68-75, 4 April 2019; and Kartoyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4570/07

  TRAMPEVSKI v.

  Having regard to the fee note submitted by the applicant, the Court finds that only EUR 340 related to lawyer's fees which were expended with a view to seeking prevention before the national courts of the violation found by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, § 56, 5 April 2007, and Trajce Stojanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 1431/03, § 46, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  In the context of the principle of equality of arms, in the case of Stoimenov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 17995/02, §§ 40-42, 5 April 2007) the Court also referred to "appearances" when concluding that an opinion submitted by the Forensic Science Bureau, a State agency, was akin to incriminating evidence used by the prosecution and that the refusal of an alternative expert examination and the applicant's inability to challenge the Bureau's report in the circumstances of that case had resulted in a violation of the equality of arms (see also Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 65-67, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR - 28776/22 (anhängig)

  MARAVIC v. CROATIA

  In particular, did she have an opportunity to effectively challenge the findings of the expert used to convict her (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 and 41-42, 5 April 2007; Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 711-716, 25 July 2013, and Kartoyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR - 36639/22 (anhängig)

  ANICIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 68437/13

  HAMZAGIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 22715/15

  BOZHINOSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA