Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CONIAC v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CONIAC v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 20491/92

  MEDENICA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07

  The Court notes at the outset that although proceedings that take place in the accused's absence are not of themselves incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice nevertheless undoubtedly occurs where a person convicted in absentia is unable subsequently to obtain from the court which heard his case a fresh determination of the merits of the charge - in respect of both law and fact - where it has not been established that he waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-II; and Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 29, Series A no. 89), or that he intended to escape trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, § 55, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07

  Moreover, inherent to the Convention are the notions of legal certainty and the rule of law (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31; and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07

  In particular, the procedural means offered by domestic law and practice must be shown to be effective where a person charged with a criminal offence has neither waived his right to appear and defend himself nor sought to escape trial (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 67, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07

  Moreover, inherent to the Convention are the notions of legal certainty and the rule of law (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31; and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07

  Moreover, although the High Court allowed the applicant to make a statement at the end of the hearing, it should be noted that the Court has already found that the use made of such an opportunity is not sufficient to the purpose of Article 6 of the Convention (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-VIII).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.05.2016 - C-108/16

  Dworzecki - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …

  29 - Vgl. u. a. EGMR, T./Italien, § 28, Somogyi/Italien, § 75, 12. Juni 2007, Pititto/Italien, CE:ECHR:2007:0612JUD001932103, §§ 68 und 70, und 6. Oktober 2015, Coniac/Rumänien, CE:ECHR:2015:1006JUD000494107, § 53. Vgl. auch EGMR, 23. Mai 2006, Kounov/Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2006:0523JUD002437902.
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 3698/23

  ZANOTTI v. SAN MARINO

  However, an applicant is not normally required to avail himself of an extraordinary remedy for the purposes of the exhaustion rule under Article 35 § 1 (see Coniac v. Romania, no. 4941/07, § 36, 6 October 2015; Kiiskinen v. Finland (dec.) no. 26323/95, ECHR 1999-V; and Oddone and Pecci v. San Marino, nos.
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 20496/17

  KONNOVA v. ESTONIA

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the Convention does not guarantee a right to reopen proceedings in a particular case, nor is an applicant normally required to avail himself or herself of an extraordinary remedy for the purposes of the exhaustion rule under Article 35 § 1 (see Coniac v. Romania, no. 4941/07, § 36, 6 October 2015, and Kiiskinen v. Finland (dec.) no. 26323/95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 26581/17

  ODDONE AND PECCI v. SAN MARINO

  Even assuming the Government are not estopped from raising this objection (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 52-53, 15 December 2016), the Court reiterates that an applicant is not normally required to avail himself of an extraordinary remedy for the purposes of the exhaustion rule under Article 35 § 1 (see Coniac v. Romania, no. 4941/07, § 36, 6 October 2015; Kiiskinen v. Finland (dec.) no. 26323/95, ECHR 1999-V; and contrast Zima v. Poland, (dec.).