Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUCHANINOVA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 16347/02
• EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02
• EGMR, 04.10.2017 - 16347/02

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02

  In this context, the Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention, read as a whole, guarantees the right of an accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 60, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 35115/97

  RIEPAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02

  As regards the applicant's complaint that the hearing in her case was not public, the Court reiterates that the holding of court hearings in public constitutes a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 27, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38789/04

  GUREPKA v. UKRAINE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02

  The Court therefore concludes that it was of a minor nature, falling within the exceptions permitted by the second paragraph of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (compare and contrast Zaicevs v. Latvia, no. 65022/01, §§ 55 and 56, ECHR 2007-IX (extracts), and Gurepka v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 38789/04, § 33, 8 April 2010).

 
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02

  The severity of an alleged violation should be assessed, taking account of both an applicant's subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02

  Having regard to the general character of the legal provision infringed by the applicant and the deterrent and punitive purpose of the penalties envisaged by that provision, the Court considers that the proceedings at issue were criminal for the purposes of the Convention (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, §§ 52-54, Series A no. 73; Lauko v. Slovakia, 2 September 1998, §§ 56-59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; and Rybka v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 10544/03, 17 November 2009).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2011 - 16347/02

  The mere nomination of a lawyer by the authorities does not ensure effective assistance (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168).

• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25703/11

  DVORSKI v. CROATIA

  En particulier, l'accusé doit avoir la faculté d'organiser sa défense comme il convient et sans restriction quant à la possibilité de soulever tout moyen de défense pertinent devant la juridiction de jugement et donc d'influencer l'issue du procès (Luchaninova c. Ukraine, no 16347/02, § 62, 9 juin 2011).