Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,29851) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IZET HAXHIA v. ALBANIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Izet Haxhia v. Albania
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 26866/05
SHKALLA v. ALBANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06
It would not have been open to the applicant to lodge a constitutional appeal within two years of the date of the Supreme Court's decision, since it was established that he had not learned of his conviction in absentia until 3 June 2006, when he was arrested by the Turkish authorities (see Shkalla v. Albania, no. 26866/05, §§ 52 and 53, 10 May 2011, in which the Constitutional Court, on 1 February 2005, declared the applicant's constitutional complaint time-barred, the time-limit having started to run on the date of delivery of the Supreme Court's decision given in absentia instead of the moment the applicant was informed of the Supreme Court's decision).The Court reiterates its findings in Shkalla v. Albania (no. 26866/05, §§ 77-79, 10 May 2011), that when an applicant has been convicted in breach of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, the most appropriate form of redress would be to ensure that the applicant is put as far as possible in the position in which he would have been had this provision been respected.
- EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 65187/10
BALAKCHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06
The Government did not submit any evidence to the contrary, and there are no special circumstances which would justify making an exception to that rule (compare and contrast Balakchiev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 65187/10, 18 June 2013; Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. - EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96
BAUMANN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06
Furthermore, the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court, although this rule is subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V, and Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII).
- EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01
BRUSCO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01
NOGOLICA c. CROATIE
- EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00
ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06
57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002-IX; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX). - EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 16552/02
PIKIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06
Accordingly, at the time of lodging his application with this Court, the applicant could not have been expected to lodge a constitutional complaint, which at the time did not offer him any reasonable prospect of success (see Pikic v. Croatia, no. 16552/02, §§ 30-32, 18 January 2005). - EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 69146/01
BABYLONOVA v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06
Furthermore, the assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court, although this rule is subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V, and Babylonová v. Slovakia, no. 69146/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 3843/02
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 34783/06
It further recalls that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 247-B). - EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99
Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
- EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 29864/03
MULOSMANI v. ALBANIA
Le 26 juillet 2000, au cours d'un second interrogatoire, M. accusa trois hauts responsables de la police de Bajram Curri du meurtre: F.M., le requérant et Iz.H. Ce dernier a introduit une requête séparée devant la Cour (no 34783/06). - EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 6858/11
DELIJORGJI v. ALBANIA
The assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see, amongst others, Izet Haxhia v. Albania, no. 34783/06, § 48, 5 November 2013). - EGMR - 23369/16 (anhängig)
JAUPI v. ALBANIA
Having regard to the fact that the trial proceedings were held in absentia, do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 6 of the Convention (see, in this connection, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006-...; Shkalla v. Albania, no. 26866/05, § 60, 10 May 2011 and, Izet Haxhia v. Albania, no. 34783/06, 5 November 2013)?. - EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 38924/13
BUCI v. ALBANIA
A decision to that effect was adopted by the Supreme Court in 2008 and published on its website (see Sulejmani v. Albania (dec.), no. 16114/10, §§ 10 and 11, 9 June 2012; see also Izet Haxhia v. Albania, no. 34783/06, §§ 54-56, 5 November 2013).