Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,30590) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GAGGL v. AUSTRIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;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)
GAGGL v. AUSTRIA
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02
STOIMENOV v.
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014, and Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007). - EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15809/02
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren und Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Kriterien für eine …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
What constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case (see O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, § 53, ECHR 2007-III). - EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 40847/98
TAMMINEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
However, the rules on admissibility of evidence may sometimes run counter to the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, or affect the fairness of the proceedings otherwise (see, for example, Tamminen v. Finland, no. 40847/98, §§ 39-41, 15 June 2004).
- EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
In addition, while no problem of fairness necessarily arises where the evidence obtained was unsupported by other material, it may be noted that where the evidence is very strong and there is no risk of its being unreliable, the need for supporting evidence is correspondingly weaker (see, among other authorities, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 90, 10 March 2009). - EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 73359/10
ERGEZEN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
The Court notes that in various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the Convention proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among other authorities, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Pisarkiewicz v. Poland, no. 18967/02, §§ 30-33, 22 January 2008; and Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, §§ 27-30, 8 April 2014). - EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10
MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014, and Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007). - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
The Court has accepted that the next of kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see, for instance, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). - EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
The Court notes that in various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the Convention proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among other authorities, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Pisarkiewicz v. Poland, no. 18967/02, §§ 30-33, 22 January 2008; and Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, §§ 27-30, 8 April 2014). - EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 25624/02
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
What constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case (see O'Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02, § 53, ECHR 2007-III). - EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95
DALBAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 63950/19
However, for reasons of convenience, the text of this judgment will continue to refer to Ms Hildegard Gaggl as "the applicant" (see, for instance, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999 VI).
- EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 25930/12
BASTIAENS ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE