Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUTYAGIN c. RUSSIE

  Art. 5, Art. ... 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partiellement recevable Partiellement irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. ... 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  In criminal matters the provision of full, detailed information concerning the charges against a defendant, and consequently the legal characterisation that the court might adopt in the matter, is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the proceedings are fair (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-II, and Mattocia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, § 58, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 23969/94

  MATTOCCIA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  In criminal matters the provision of full, detailed information concerning the charges against a defendant, and consequently the legal characterisation that the court might adopt in the matter, is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the proceedings are fair (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-II, and Mattocia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, § 58, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  In the absence of any indications to the contrary this time was manifestly sufficient for the applicant to react to those charges and organise his defence in a practical and effective manner (see, a contrario, Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 57, ECHR 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  Nevertheless, whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made (see Adolf v. Austria, judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, pp. 17-19, §§ 36-41, and Daktaras, cited above, § 41).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  Particulars of the offence play a crucial role in the criminal process, in that it is from the moment of their service that the suspect is formally put on written notice of the factual and legal basis of the charges against him (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 36-37, § 79).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 2 cannot prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 38).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  Therefore, what matters is the extent and nature of the pre-trial measures taken by the judge (see Fey v. Austria, judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 30, and Sainte-Marie v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-A, p. 32, § 32).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12981/87

  SAINTE-MARIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  Therefore, what matters is the extent and nature of the pre-trial measures taken by the judge (see Fey v. Austria, judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 30, and Sainte-Marie v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-A, p. 32, § 32).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  Even assuming so, the applicant cannot be criticised for not having made use of a legal remedy which would have been directed to essentially the same end (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 11, § 23; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 47, ECHR 1999-II; and Miailhe v. France (no. 1), judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-C, p. 87, § 27).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02

  Suspicion and a formal finding of guilt are not to be treated as being the same (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, pp. 21-22, §§ 49-50).