Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (34)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, § 29).

• BVerfG, 15.12.2015 - 2 BvR 2735/14

  Gewährleistung einzelfallbezogenen Grundrechtsschutzes im Rahmen der …

  Der Verteidigung würde die Möglichkeit genommen, in einem Wiederaufnahmeverfahren die Zulassung neuer Beweise zu beantragen (vgl. EGMR, Jones v. Vereinigtes Königreich, Entscheidung vom 9. September 2003, Nr. 30900/02; EGMR , Sejdovic v. Italien, Urteil vom 1. März 2006, Nr. 56581/00, § 85).

  Das Verfahren kann dann in seiner Gesamtheit als fair angesehen werden (vgl. EGMR, Jones v. Vereinigtes Königreich, Entscheidung vom 9. September 2003, Nr. 30900/02; EGMR , Sejdovic v. Italien, Urteil vom 1. März 2006, Nr. 56581/00, § 85).

  Der Verzicht muss allerdings unmissverständlich ausgedrückt werden und gewissen Mindestanforderungen genügen (vgl. EGMR, Jones v. Vereinigtes Königreich, Entscheidung vom 9. September 2003, Nr. 30900/02).

• EGMR, 01.03.2006 - 56581/00

  SEJDOVIC c. ITALIE

  La Cour a aussi estimé que la réouverture du délai d'appel contre la condamnation par contumace, avec la faculté, pour l'accusé, d'être présent à l'audience de deuxième instance et de demander la production de nouvelles preuves s'analysait en la possibilité d'une nouvelle décision sur le bien-fondé de l'accusation en fait comme en droit, ce qui permettait de conclure que, dans son ensemble, la procédure avait été équitable (Jones c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 30900/02, 9 septembre 2003).
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04

  PISHCHALNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, 27 March 2007, § 59, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  La procédure dans son ensemble peut passer pour avoir revêtu un caractère équitable si l'accusé a pu faire appel de sa condamnation prononcée en son absence et comparaître à l'audience devant la juridiction d'appel, et si celle-ci a statué à nouveau, en fait comme en droit, sur le bien-fondé de l'accusation (Jones c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 30900/02, 9 septembre 2003).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen Verteidigerbeistand bei der ersten Vernehmung …

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

  Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, 27 March 2007, § 59, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 4268/04

  PANOVITS c. CHYPRE

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, 27 March 2007, § 59, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 37368/15

  CHONG CORONADO c. ANDORRE

  Compte tenu de son comportement, le requérant pouvait raisonnablement prévoir les conséquences légales qui en découleraient pour lui (Sejdovic, précité, § 87, et Jones c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 30900/02, 9 septembre 2003), notamment l'obligation de se rendre en Andorre pour faire rejuger son affaire en raison de son absence délibérée au procès de première instance.
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  SINICHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have by implication, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 32432/96

  TALAT TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 28263/09

  BARATTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05

  NECHTO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

  LOPATA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 46929/06

  ELYASIN c. GRECE
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 52009/07

  LENA ATANASOVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 14204/07

  MIHELJ v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 10948/05

  CAMPISI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 6246/04

  RUSU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 59743/10

  BYKHOVETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 30906/06

  GAZIZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  SMAJIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 40962/04

  NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 12543/09

  BORISOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  VANFULI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04

  KONONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 32823/02

  KIMMEL c. ITALIE
• EGMR - 25877/12 (anhängig)

  AKIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 34839/11

  VYBORNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 30265/09

  DONCEV AND BURGOV v.
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 12167/04

  YEROKHINA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 38511/03

  BOROANCA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 23275/06

  KRAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 40521/06

  GORBATENKO v. RUSSIA