Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHULEPOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Reminder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 34449/03

  Where no other possibility exists, for instance due to a refusal of the person concerned to appear for an examination, at least an assessment by a medical expert on the basis of the file must be sought, failing which it cannot be maintained that the person has reliably been shown to be of unsound mind (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 47, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 06.06.2002 - 43293/98

  LASMANE contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 34449/03

  What is decisive, however, is the position occupied by the experts throughout the proceedings, the manner in which they performed their functions and the way the judges assessed the expert opinion (see Zarb v. Malta (dec.), no. 16631/04, 27 September 2005, and Lasmane v. Latvia (dec.), no. 43293/98, 6 June 2002).
• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 34449/03

  In ascertaining the expert's procedural position and his role in the proceedings, one must not lose sight of the fact that the opinion given by a court-appointed expert is likely to carry significant weight in the court's assessment of the issues within that expert's competence (see Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 31930/04, § 47, ECHR 2007-..., and Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, § 33, Series A no. 92).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 34449/03

  However, it cannot be taken to permit the detention of someone simply because his or her views or behaviour deviate from established norms (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 37).

• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 10211/12

  Sexualstraftäter scheitert mit Beschwerde gegen nachträgliche …

  Da das Recht auf Freiheit einen "zivilrechtlichen" Anspruch darstellt, ist auf solche Verfahren der zivilrechtliche Teil von Artikel 6 Abs. 1 anwendbar (…siehe u. a. Aerts./. Belgien, 30. Juli 1998, Rdnr. 59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; Laidin./. Frankreich (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39282/98, Rdnrn. 75-76, 7. Januar 2003; und Shulepova./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 34449/03, Rdnr. 59, 11.
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 926/08

  KARELIN v. RUSSIA

  In the context of the principle of equality of arms, in the case of Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 17995/02, §§ 40-42, 5 April 2007) the Court also referred to "appearances" when concluding that an opinion submitted by the Forensic Science Bureau, a State agency, was akin to incriminating evidence used by the prosecution and that the refusal of an alternative expert examination and the applicant's inability to challenge the Bureau's report in the circumstances of that case had resulted in a violation of the equality of arms (see also Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 65-67, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  In ascertaining the experts' procedural position and their role in the proceedings, the Court takes into account the fact that the opinion given by any court-appointed expert is likely to carry significant weight in the court's assessment of the issues within that expert's competence (see Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, § 62, 11 December 2008, and Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  PLACÌ v. ITALY

  Thus, the Court observes that it was not required to give general advice on a particular subject, but rather was called upon to make findings on specific facts and to assess the performance of colleagues in the military with the aim of assisting the CS in determining the question of the military's responsibility, which could have led to the applicant being awarded compensation (see, similarly, Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir, cited above, § 51, and Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, § 65, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  In the context of the principle of equality of arms, in the case of Stoimenov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 17995/02, §§ 40-42, 5 April 2007) the Court also referred to "appearances" when concluding that an opinion submitted by the Forensic Science Bureau, a State agency, was akin to incriminating evidence used by the prosecution and that the refusal of an alternative expert examination and the applicant's inability to challenge the Bureau's report in the circumstances of that case had resulted in a violation of the equality of arms (see also Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 65-67, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR - 45914/06

  SHARIPOV v. RUSSIA

  Has the appointment as expert of an officer of the Federal Service of Drug Control hindered the principle of equality of arms and rendered the proceedings unfair contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, 11 December 2008, and Zarb v. Malta (dec.), no. 16631/04, 27 September 2005)? The Government are invited to submit a copy of the applicant's statement of appeal.
• EGMR - 36639/22 (anhängig)

  ANICIC v. SERBIA

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was, in the specific circumstances of the present case, the general principle of procedural fairness contained in this provision respected given that the national courts had, according to the applicant, first decided not to obtain themselves a traffic expert's written opinion and had then also refused to take into account a traffic expert's written opinion submitted by the applicant personally (see, for example, Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 26711/07 and 2 others, § 95, 12 May 2016, with further references; see also, mutatis mutandis, Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, § 62 in fine, 11 December 2008; Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38-43, 5 April 2007; and Matytsina v. Russia, no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014)?.
• EGMR - 32654/18 (anhängig)

  PĘDRAK v. POLAND

  Was Article 6 § 1, under its civil head, applicable to the proceedings in question? If so, has the appointment as expert of the medical specialist employed by the hospital hindered the principle of equality of arms and rendered the proceedings unfair contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (see, I.N. v. Ukraine, no. 28472/08, §§ 65-69, 23 June 2016 and Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, 11 December 2008).