Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-b - Preparation of defence) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) No violation of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  In particular, "as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce... Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses" (see Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, pp. 32-33, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  In this respect, the Court recalls that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective; this is particularly so in respect of the rights of the defence in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial, from which they derive (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the ability to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 78, 20 January 2005; Connolly v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27245/95, 26 June 1996; Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 220, 9 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  The Court reiterates that the guarantees contained in Article 6 § 3, including those enunciated in sub-paragraph (d), are constituent elements, amongst others, of the concept of a fair trial set forth in Article 6 § 1 (see Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, § 29, Series A no. 92).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  When assessing whether the accused had adequate time for the preparation of his defence, particular regard has to be had to the nature of the proceedings, as well as the complexity of the case and stage of the proceedings (see X. v. Belgium, no. 7628/76, Commission decision of 9 May 1977, Decisions and Reports (DR) 9, p. 172, and Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 41, Series A no. 58).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).

• EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 1586/15

  ROOK v. GERMANY

  Der Gerichtshof ist überzeugt, dass es angesichts der Komplexität des in Rede stehenden Strafverfahrens (siehe Gregacevic./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 58331/09, Rdnr. 53, 10. Juli 2012) nicht erforderlich war, dem Verteidiger des Beschwerdeführers die Gelegenheit zu geben, jedes einzelne Element der Telekommunikationsüberwachungsdaten anzuhören bzw. zu lesen.
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  In this regard the Court emphasises that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, ECHR 2016), since they are not only combined in the same Article, but also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 35, 10 July 2012, and the references cited therein).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 26679/08

  NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA

  The right to a fair trial holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that there can be no justification for interpreting the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention restrictively (see Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 49, 10 July 2012, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11

  ZAHIROVIC v. CROATIA

  Therefore, it is even possible that a procedural situation which does not place a party at any disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent still represents a violation of the right to adversarial proceedings if the party concerned did not have an opportunity to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence adduced or observations filed, with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Krcmár and Others, cited above, §§ 38-46; and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 50, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 37963/15

  MINTKEN AND AYDIN v. GERMANY

  Bei der Prüfung der Frage, ob eine angeklagte Person ausreichend Zeit für die Vorbereitung ihrer Verteidigung hatte, muss insbesondere der Art des Verfahrens, der Komplexität des Falles und dem Verfahrensstadium Rechnung getragen werden (siehe Gregacevic./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 58331/09, Rdnr. 51, 10. Juli 2012).
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  PAVLOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II; and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 35, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 20837/18

  ALEXANDRU-RADU LUCA v. ROMANIA

  According to the right to adversarial proceedings the parties must have the opportunity not only to make known any evidence needed for their claims to succeed, but also to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence adduced or observations filed, with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 50, 10 July 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18550/13

  MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  The right to a fair trial holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that there can be no justification for interpreting the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention restrictively (see Moreira de Azevedo v. Portugal, 23 October 1990, § 66, Series A no. 189, and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 49, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 17716/08

  KARTVELISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  With this proviso, it leaves it to the competent national authorities to decide upon the relevance of proposed evidence, in so far as this is compatible with the concept of a fair trial, which dominates the whole of Article 6 (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 91, Series A no. 22, and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 60, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25782/11

  KARDOS v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since they are not only combined in the same Article, but also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990; Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 35, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  LONIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 74272/17

  MICIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 73553/16

  TONCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 55951/16

  IANNINI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 71585/17

  MARTINEZ ALMAGRO v. SPAIN