Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN ANRAAT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  Furthermore, it is the domestic courts which are best placed to assess the credibility and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B; Vernon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38753/97, ECHR 1999-VI; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and recently, Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, § 67, 4 March 2010, and Rupar v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16480/02, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 38753/97

  VERNON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  Furthermore, it is the domestic courts which are best placed to assess the credibility and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B; Vernon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38753/97, ECHR 1999-VI; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and recently, Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, § 67, 4 March 2010, and Rupar v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16480/02, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  Furthermore, it is the domestic courts which are best placed to assess the credibility and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B; Vernon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38753/97, ECHR 1999-VI; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and recently, Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, § 67, 4 March 2010, and Rupar v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16480/02, 18 May 2010).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 16480/02

  RUPAR v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  Furthermore, it is the domestic courts which are best placed to assess the credibility and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, among many other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B; Vernon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 38753/97, ECHR 1999-VI; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and recently, Shalimov v. Ukraine, no. 20808/02, § 67, 4 March 2010, and Rupar v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 16480/02, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  This also applies where domestic law refers to rules of general international law or international agreements (see, in particular, Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 108, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  In the circumstances of the present case, characterised as they were by the applicant's making use of the opportunity offered to submit an entirely novel argument at the latest possible stage of proceedings, Article 6 § 1 did not compel the Supreme Court to provide a reasoned response (compare Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 60, Series A no. 288).
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

  Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, § 85, ECHR 2001-II (extracts); Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, §§ 101-109, 12 July 2007; and Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 69-71, 19 September 2008).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, § 85, ECHR 2001-II (extracts); Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, §§ 101-109, 12 July 2007; and Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 69-71, 19 September 2008).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  The Court has held it to be a requirement inherent in the element of "adversarial proceedings" contained in Article 6 § 1, as applicable to proceedings of a cassation type, that a defendant in a criminal case should have the opportunity to respond to the advisory opinion of the Procurator General (principle stated in Borgers v. Belgium, 30 October 1991, § 27, Series A no. 214-B; see also, among many authorities involving a variety of Contracting Parties, the following judgments given against the Kingdom of the Netherlands: J.J. v. the Netherlands, 27 March 1998, §§ 42-43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, and K.D.B. v. the Netherlands, 27 March 1998, §§ 43-44, Reports 1998-II).

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 27510/08

  Leugnung des Völkermords an Armeniern von Meinungsfreiheit gedeckt

  It can thus hardly be regarded as enunciating a rule which has attained the status of customary international law (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 150, ECHR 2013, and the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, cited above, § 73, and contrast Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, §§ 90-92, 6 July 2010, where it was found that the rule against the use of mustard gas as a weapon of war in an international conflict, having first been set out in a 1925 treaty, had gone on to attain the status of customary law).
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

  MURSIC c. CROATIE

  34356/06 and 40528/06, §§ 88-94 and 202-215, ECHR 2014; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 75, ECHR 2012; Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, §§ 90-92, 6 July 2010; Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, §§ 203, 211, 215 and 221, ECHR 2010, and the dissenting opinion in that case of Judge Costa joined by Judges Kalaydjieva and Poalelungi; Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, §§ 65, 85 and 92, ECHR 2010; Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 66, ECHR 2010; Stoll v. Switzerland [GC], no. 69698/01, § 59, ECHR 2007-V; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 61-66, ECHR 2001-XI; and Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 66, ECHR 2001-XII. In Jones and Others, cited above, § 198, the Court considered the ICJ's case-law to be "authoritative as regards the content of customary international law".
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In cases arising from individual applications the Court's task is not to review the relevant legislation or practice in the abstract; it must as far as possible confine itself, without overlooking the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, among other authorities, Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, § 39, Series A no. 81; Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 48, 24 October 2002; Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, § 75, 6 July 2010; and S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 92, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11

  HET FINANCIEELE DAGBLAD B.v. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court has stated the applicable principles as follows (Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, §§ 185-187, ECHR 2010-...; Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, § 78, ECHR 2010-... (extracts)):.