Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIRONOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 22625/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 23.04.1998 - 22885/93

  BERNARD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see, inter alia, Bernard v. France, judgment of 23 April 1998, no. 22885/93, § 37, ECHR 1998-II).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  In particular, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see A. M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX, and Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, pp. 56-57, §§ 43-44).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or is sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, p. 33, § 65).
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  The provision is violated only if this is made impossible (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  The task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 26).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) of Article 6 § 3 (see, among other authorities, Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, pp. 10-11, § 26).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  As a rule, these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him or her either when that witness is making a statement or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 49).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B., § 29).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 22625/02

  It would clearly have been preferable for the witnesses to have given evidence in person, but, in view of the authorities" efforts, their unavailability did not in itself make it necessary to halt the prosecution (see Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, § 21).