Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JGHARKAVA v. GEORGIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  JGHARKAVA v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  However, the personal attendance of the defendant does not necessarily take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168, and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 60, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court reiterates that 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. Therefore, it will examine the applicant's complaint under these provisions taken together (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  In order to decide on this issue, regard must be had, among other considerations, to the specific features of the proceedings in question and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the appeal court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it and of their importance to the appellant (see Hermi, cited above, § 62; see also Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 27, Series A no. 134; Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 59, Series A no. 268-B; and Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II).

 
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  In appeal proceedings, reviewing the case both on the facts and the law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, even less a right to appear in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C, and Hermi, cited above, § 62).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  The Court has held that the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005, and Sibgatullin v. Russia, no. 32165/02, § 33, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

  HERMI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  However, the personal attendance of the defendant does not necessarily take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168, and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 60, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  The Court has held that the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005, and Sibgatullin v. Russia, no. 32165/02, § 33, 23 April 2009).