Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 31379/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,1614) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PETRINA v. CROATIA
Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence in person) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Petrina v. Croatia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
PETRINA v. CROATIA
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 31379/10
- EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 31379/10
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95
VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 31379/10
The Court notes at the outset that the present case is distinguishable from the cases in which the applicants were not informed of the criminal proceedings against them and where they were tried in absentia (see Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76; Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006-II); or in which the applicant absconded and sought to evade trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, ECHR 2001-VI); and from those in which the applicants were served with notice of the date of the hearing but decided not to appear and later complained about the effectiveness of their legal representation at the hearing (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 32, Series A no. 277-A; Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-A; Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 297-B; and Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89
LALA c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 31379/10
The Court notes at the outset that the present case is distinguishable from the cases in which the applicants were not informed of the criminal proceedings against them and where they were tried in absentia (see Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76; Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006-II); or in which the applicant absconded and sought to evade trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, ECHR 2001-VI); and from those in which the applicants were served with notice of the date of the hearing but decided not to appear and later complained about the effectiveness of their legal representation at the hearing (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 32, Series A no. 277-A; Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-A; Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 297-B; and Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80
GODDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 31379/10
The Court notes at the outset that the present case is distinguishable from the cases in which the applicants were not informed of the criminal proceedings against them and where they were tried in absentia (see Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76; Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006-II); or in which the applicant absconded and sought to evade trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, ECHR 2001-VI); and from those in which the applicants were served with notice of the date of the hearing but decided not to appear and later complained about the effectiveness of their legal representation at the hearing (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 32, Series A no. 277-A; Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-A; Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 297-B; and Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96
Dieter Krombach
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 31379/10
The Court will examine the complaint under the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 6 taken together, which are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial (see, for example, Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88
POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 31379/10
The Court notes at the outset that the present case is distinguishable from the cases in which the applicants were not informed of the criminal proceedings against them and where they were tried in absentia (see Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76; Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006-II); or in which the applicant absconded and sought to evade trial (see Medenica v. Switzerland, no. 20491/92, ECHR 2001-VI); and from those in which the applicants were served with notice of the date of the hearing but decided not to appear and later complained about the effectiveness of their legal representation at the hearing (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 32, Series A no. 277-A; Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-A; Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 37, Series A no. 297-B; and Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).