Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 1195/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27252) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHALA v. NORWAY
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87
HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 1195/10
The reasons should also give the parties a basis on which to decide whether to appeal; see Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 252) and give the appellate court a basis on which to review the judgment; see e.g. paragraph 49 of the Human Rights Committee's General Comment 32 of 2007.In such cases, the national courts must indicate with sufficient clarity the grounds on which they base their decisions (see Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 252).
- EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 19997/02
BOLDEA c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 1195/10
While courts are not obliged to give a detailed answer to every argument raised (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288), it must be clear from the decision that the essential issues of the case have been addressed (see Boldea v. Romania, no. 19997/02, § 30, ECHR 2007-II). - EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 1195/10
While courts are not obliged to give a detailed answer to every argument raised (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288), it must be clear from the decision that the essential issues of the case have been addressed (see Boldea v. Romania, no. 19997/02, § 30, ECHR 2007-II). - EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01
SALOV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 1195/10
Secondly, the reasons should show the parties that they have been heard and enable public scrutiny of the administration of justice; see Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 89, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts).
- EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 34238/09
LHERMITTE c. BELGIQUE
In these circumstances, Article 6 requires an assessment of whether sufficient safeguards were in place to avoid any risk of arbitrariness and to enable the accused to understand the reasons for his or her conviction (ibid., §§ 90 and 92; see also Judge v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35863/10, 8 February 2011; Shala v. Norway (dec.), no. 1195/10, 10 July 2012; and Agnelet, cited above).