Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELVANAYAGAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 57981/00

  The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and in practice at the relevant time namely, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (See Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1211, §§ 66 and 68; and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 57, ECHR-IX).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 57981/00

  The Court recalls that, 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 (see, among other authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 14, § 33).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 57981/00

  The Court further recalls that the guarantees in paragraphs 2 and 3(d) of Article 6 of the Convention are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 of that Article (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 67).
• EGMR, 07.10.1988 - 10519/83

  SALABIAKU c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 57981/00

  It requires States to confine them within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence (see Salabiaku v. France, judgment of 7 October 1988, Series A no. 141-A, § 28).

• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 8319/07

  SUFI AND ELMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, it has also on occasion found that where an applicant is advised by counsel that an appeal offers no prospects of success, that appeal does not constitute an effective remedy (see Selvanayagam v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57981/00, 12 December 2002; see also H. v. the United Kingdom, cited above; and McFeeley and others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 29.01.2014 - 31721/10

  N.M. c. FRANCE

  Cependant elle a aussi pu considérer à certaines occasions que lorsqu'un avocat a conseillé à un requérant de ne pas interjeter appel en raison de l'absence de chance de succès, cet appel ne constitue pas une voie de recours effective (voir Selvanayagam c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 57981/00, 12 décembre 2002 ; voir aussi McFeeley et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 8317/78, décision de la Commission du 15 mai 1980, Décisions et rapports (DR) 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 22669/10

  ALI v. NORWAY

  However, it has also on occasion found that where an applicant is advised by counsel that an appeal offers no prospects of success, that appeal does not constitute an effective remedy (see Selvanayagam v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57981/00, 12 December 2002; see also H. v. the United Kingdom, cited above; and McFeeley and others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09

  AGALAR v. NORWAY

  However, it has also on occasion found that where an applicant is advised by counsel that an appeal offers no prospects of success, that appeal does not constitute an effective remedy (see Selvanayagam v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57981/00, 12 December 2002; see also H. v. the United Kingdom, cited above; and McFeeley and others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, p. 44).
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 41767/11

  J.A.T. AND J.B.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court has on occasion found that where an applicant is advised by counsel that an appeal offers no prospects of success, that appeal does not constitute an effective remedy (see Selvanayagam v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57981/00, 12 December 2002; see also H. v. the United Kingdom, cited above; and McFeeley and others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, p. 44).