Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARGUS v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal) Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence in person) No violation of Article 4 of ...

Sonstiges (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Margus v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Margus v. Croatia

  [26.06.2013]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 4455/10

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10

  The Court notes that in the case of Zolotukhin, it took the view that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 had to be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second "offence" in so far as it arose from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 82, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10

  On the whole, the Court is called upon to examine whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in their entirety, were fair (see, among other authorities, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 43, ECHR 2002-V; and Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 63-68, 15 December 2005).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10

  In this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86; Meznaric v. Croatia, no. 71615/01, § 32, 15 July 2005; and Micallef, cited above, § 75).

 
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10

  As regards the subjective test, the Court first notes that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10

  On the whole, the Court is called upon to examine whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in their entirety, were fair (see, among other authorities, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38; S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 43, ECHR 2002-V; and Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 63-68, 15 December 2005).
• EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 13113/03

  OULD DAH c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10

  In its decision in the case of Ould Dah v. France ((dec.), no. 13113/03, ECHR 2009) the Court held, referring also to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the ICTY, that an amnesty was generally incompatible with the duty incumbent on States to investigate acts such as torture and that the obligation to prosecute criminals should not therefore be undermined by granting impunity to the perpetrator in the form of an amnesty law that might be considered contrary to international law.
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 34738/04

  YESIL ET SEVIM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10

  The Court has already held that, where a State agent has been charged with crimes involving torture or ill-treatment, it is of the utmost importance that criminal proceedings and sentencing are not time-barred and that the granting of an amnesty or pardon should not be permissible (see Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 55, 2 November 2004; Okkalı v. Turkey, no 52067/99, § 76, 17 October 2006; and Yesil and Sevim v. Turkey, no. 34738/04, § 38, 5 June 2007).

• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 57812/13

  Z AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  On 4 September 2014 the State Attorney's Office held a meeting in connection with the Court's judgment in the Margus case (see Margus v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), in which the Court held that the ne bis in idem principle did not apply to amnesties for war crimes.

  Further to this, however, and following the Court's judgment in the Margus case where the Court held that the ne bis in idem principle did not apply where an amnesty had been granted for acts which amounted to grave breaches of fundamental human rights (see Margus v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the State Attorney's Office re-opened the investigation into A's killing (see paragraphs 25 and 26 above).

• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 78108/14

  PAIXÃO MOREIRA SÁ FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL

  S'agissant d'affaires où un tribunal avait eu à statuer une nouvelle fois sur une affaire donnée, après infirmation ou annulation d'une décision par une juridiction supérieure, la Cour a dit que le devoir d'impartialité ne peut s'interpréter comme imposant à toute juridiction de recours l'obligation de renvoyer l'affaire à une autre autorité juridictionnelle ou à un organe autrement constitué de cette autorité (Margu?. c. Croatie [GC], no 4455/10, §§ 85-89, CEDH 2014 (extraits), Thomann c. Suisse, 10 juin 1996, § 33, Recueil 1996-III, et Stow et Gai c. Portugal (déc.), no 18306/04, 4 octobre 2005).