Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAXQUET c. BELGIQUE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 6-1 et 6-3-d Préjudice moral - réparation Dommage matériel - demande rejetée (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAXQUET v. BELGIUM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Taxquet v. Belgium

  [21.10.2009]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05
• EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 926/05
• EGMR, 26.09.2012 - 926/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  According to the Court's case-law, an award can be made in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Entreprises Robert Delbrassine S.A. and Others v. Belgium, no. 49204/99, § 35, 1 July 2004, and Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95

  PESTI AND FRODL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I; Deperrois v. France (dec.), no. 48203/99, 22 June 2000; and Ramos Ruiz v. Spain (dec.), no. 65892/01, 19 February 2002).
• EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 53183/99

  LOEWENGUTH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  The Court observes that the Articles relied on do not guarantee any right of appeal and that, moreover, Belgium is not a party to Protocol No. 7. In addition, the Court has held on a number of occasions that the fact that the review conducted by a supreme court is restricted to questions of law is not in breach of Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Loewenguth v. France (dec.), no. 53183/99, ECHR 2000-VI; Pesti and Frodl v. Austria (dec.), nos.

 
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 48203/99

  DEPERROIS contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I; Deperrois v. France (dec.), no. 48203/99, 22 June 2000; and Ramos Ruiz v. Spain (dec.), no. 65892/01, 19 February 2002).
• EGMR, 19.02.2002 - 65892/01

  RAMOS RUIZ contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I; Deperrois v. France (dec.), no. 48203/99, 22 June 2000; and Ramos Ruiz v. Spain (dec.), no. 65892/01, 19 February 2002).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 40997/98

  TAHIR DURAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  The Court reiterates that, where it finds that an applicant has been convicted after not being afforded one of the safeguards of a fair trial, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, in due course and in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003; Tahir Duran v. Turkey, no. 40997/98, § 23, 29 January 2004; Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-V; and Öcalan c. Turquie [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  The Court reiterates that, where it finds that an applicant has been convicted after not being afforded one of the safeguards of a fair trial, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, in due course and in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003; Tahir Duran v. Turkey, no. 40997/98, § 23, 29 January 2004; Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-V; and Öcalan c. Turquie [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  Accordingly, only exceptional circumstances may prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6 (see Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158, and Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, 18 May 2004).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the present case under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05

  Thus, in dismissing an appeal, an appellate court may, in principle, simply endorse the reasons for the lower court's decision (see, mutatis mutandis, Helle v. Finland, 19 December 1997, §§ 59-60, Reports 1997-VIII, and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

  Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 69264/01

  DE LORENZO contre l'ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM