Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,49199) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ALGE v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
- EGMR, 22.01.2004 - 38185/97
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88
DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law, the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, § 32; Fidler v. Austria (dec.), no. 28702/95, 23 February 1999, unreported). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
As regards the first argument the Court recalls that the mere fact that a person who was acting as expert in court proceedings was at the same time a civil servant was not sufficient to cast doubt on the impartiality of that person (Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, § 44; Ettl and Others v. Austria, judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, pp. 19-20, § 40). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
The Court recalls further that as a general rule it is for the national courts, and in particular the courts of first instance, to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the autonomous sense given to that word in the Convention system; it does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89; Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33). - EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 38185/97
The Court recalls further that as a general rule it is for the national courts, and in particular the courts of first instance, to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the autonomous sense given to that word in the Convention system; it does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89; Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33).