Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CANI v. ALBANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Cani v. Albania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69264/01

  DE LORENZO contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  In the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A; and De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004), both because of his right to a hearing and because of the need to verify the accuracy of his statements and compare them with those of the victim - whose interests need to be protected - and of the witnesses (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 92, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  It does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a government (see Berhani v. Albania, no. 847/05, § 46, 27 May 2010; and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  BERHANI v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  It does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a government (see Berhani v. Albania, no. 847/05, § 46, 27 May 2010; and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, ECHR 2009-...).

 
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  In the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A; and De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004), both because of his right to a hearing and because of the need to verify the accuracy of his statements and compare them with those of the victim - whose interests need to be protected - and of the witnesses (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 92, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  The applicant maintained that his case was similar to Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B.
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  The personal appearance of the defendant does not assume the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial hearing (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  Regard must be had in assessing this question to, inter alia, the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests were presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it (see Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 212-A), and their importance for the appellant (see Kremzow, cited above, § 59; Kamasinski, cited above, § 106 in fine; and Ekbatani, cited above, §§ 27-28).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  Leave-to-appeal proceedings and proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 even though the appellant has not been given the opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that there has been a public hearing at first instance (see, inter alia, Monnell and Morris, cited above, § 58 (leave to appeal); and Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 30, Series A no. 74 (Court of Cassation)).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  In the interests of a fair and just criminal process it is of capital importance that the accused should appear at his trial (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A; and De Lorenzo v. Italy (dec.), no. 69264/01, 12 February 2004), both because of his right to a hearing and because of the need to verify the accuracy of his statements and compare them with those of the victim - whose interests need to be protected - and of the witnesses (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 92, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  Indeed, even where an appeal court has full jurisdiction to review the case on questions both of fact and of law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing and a fortiori a right to be present in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 31, Series A no. 212-C).