Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07, 32786/10, 34278/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,9902
EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07, 32786/10, 34278/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,9902)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.05.2016 - 26711/07, 32786/10, 34278/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,9902)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Mai 2016 - 26711/07, 32786/10, 34278/10 (https://dejure.org/2016,9902)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,9902) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    POLETAN AND AZIROVIK v. \

    Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    POLETAN AND AZIROVIK v. \

    [MAC] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    POLETAN AND AZIROVIK v. \

    [ALB] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10

    SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07
    The more important that evidence, the more weight the counterbalancing factors would have to carry in order for the proceedings as a whole to be considered fair (see Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, §§ 58 and 59, 31 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 10718/05

    DUSKO IVANOVSKI v.

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07
    Thus, Article 6, especially paragraph 3, may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Dusko Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 10718/05, § 41, 24 April 2014; Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, § 47, 25 February 2010; and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 50, ECHR 2008).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

    ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07
    As the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, the Court will examine the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 taken together (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 59, ECHR 2000-II).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 25930/12

    BASTIAENS ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Quant à l'absence de neutralité alléguée dans le chef de deux experts, la Cour rappelle que ce qui est déterminant au regard de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, ce sont la position occupée par les experts tout au long de la procédure, la manière dont ils ont accompli leur tâche et la façon dont le juge a apprécié leur avis et répondu aux griefs des requérants (voir Poletan et Azirovik c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, nos 26711/07 et 2 autres, § 94, 12 mai 2016).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

    P.W. v. AUSTRIA

    Where the defence insists on the court hearing a witness or taking other evidence (such as an expert report, for instance), it is for the domestic courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to accept that evidence for examination at the trial (see Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 26711/07 and 2 others, § 95, 12 May 2016, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 718, 25 July 2013, with further references).
  • EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 32734/11

    FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

    26711/07 and 2 others, § 94, 12 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18550/13

    MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

    26711/07, 32786/10 and 34278/10, § 81, 12 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 3571/09

    ASATRYAN v. ARMENIA

    The Court further reiterates that as a general rule, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statements or at a later stage (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011; Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07, 32786/10 and 34278/10, § 81, 12 May 2016).
  • EGMR - 46737/20 (anhängig)

    KARAKASIDIS v. GREECE

    In particular, did the national courts provide sufficient reasoning for their decisions and observe the basic requirement of criminal justice that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (see, among others, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017 ; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 125, 28 November 2002; Ajdaric v. Croatia, no. 20883/09, § 51, 13 December 2011; Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07 and 2 others, §§ 63-64, 12 May 2016; and Rostomashvili v. Georgia, no. 13185/07, §§ 54--59, 8 November 2018)? Was the finding of the jewellery in his car the only evidence on which the applicant's conviction rested?.
  • EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 5692/13

    CSÁSZY AND TÁTRAI v. HUNGARY

    Although this fact may give rise to apprehension as to the neutrality of the experts, such apprehension, while having a certain importance, is not decisive (see Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 26711/07 and 2 others, § 94, 12 May 2016).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 43526/15

    PETIC c. ROUMANIE

    Le simple fait que les experts en question soient employés par l'une des parties ne suffit pas à rendre la procédure inéquitable (Poletan et Azirovik c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, nos 26711/07 et 2 autres, § 94, 12 mai 2016).
  • EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 1837/10

    AVAGYAN v. ARMENIA

    The Court further reiterates that as a general rule, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) requires that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statements or at a later stage (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 118, ECHR 2011, and Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 26711/07, 32786/10 and 34278/10, § 81, 12 May 2016).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht