Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANADER v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sanader v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SANADER v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 66408/12

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  However, if applicable, that would need to have a different legal basis - that of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant having committed the crime at issue and the existence of "relevant and sufficient reasons" for his detention (see, amongst many others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 111, ECHR 2000 XI; and Dragin v. Croatia, no. 75068/12, § 110, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  However, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, a waiver of the right to take part in the trial must be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  Although proceedings that take place in the accused's absence are not in themselves incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice nevertheless undoubtedly occurs where a person convicted in absentia is subsequently unable to obtain from the court a fresh determination of the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact, where it has not been unequivocally established that he has waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see Colozza, cited above, § 29; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 85, ECHR 2001-II; and Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 66, ECHR 2004-IV) or that he intended to escape trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, § 55, ECHR 2001-VI).

 
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  Furthermore, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  EINHORN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  Although proceedings that take place in the accused's absence are not in themselves incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice nevertheless undoubtedly occurs where a person convicted in absentia is subsequently unable to obtain from the court a fresh determination of the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact, where it has not been unequivocally established that he has waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see Colozza, cited above, § 29; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 85, ECHR 2001-II; and Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 66, ECHR 2004-IV) or that he intended to escape trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, § 55, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  Although proceedings that take place in the accused's absence are not in themselves incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice nevertheless undoubtedly occurs where a person convicted in absentia is subsequently unable to obtain from the court a fresh determination of the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact, where it has not been unequivocally established that he has waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see Colozza, cited above, § 29; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 85, ECHR 2001-II; and Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 66, ECHR 2004-IV) or that he intended to escape trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, § 55, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  ERKAPIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  Therefore, given that the Convention is designed to "guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" (see, for example, Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 78, 25 April 2013) the Court cannot accept that such a possibility was sufficiently probable in practice.
• EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 68020/01

  DEMEBUKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  The Court considers that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the substance of the applicant's complaint that he was not able to obtain a rehearing after his conviction in absentia (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-II), and thus decides to join it to the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 41, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 75068/12

  DRAGIN v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  However, if applicable, that would need to have a different legal basis - that of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant having committed the crime at issue and the existence of "relevant and sufficient reasons" for his detention (see, amongst many others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 111, ECHR 2000 XI; and Dragin v. Croatia, no. 75068/12, § 110, 24 July 2014).

• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 3598/10

  KISLOV v. RUSSIA

  However, the absence of such fresh determination of the charge is not problematic under Article 6 of the Convention if it has not been unequivocally established that the defendant has waived his right to appear and to defend himself or that he intended to evade trial (see Sanader v. Croatia, no. 66408/12, §§ 67-71, 12 February 2015, and Sejdovic, cited above, §§ 81-88, both cases concerning criminal proceedings within a Contracting State).