Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KADAGISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a ...

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2006-IX, and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 70, 25 April 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 9043/05

  NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  As regards the use of the plea-bargaining procedure, the Court notes that it is a common feature of European criminal-justice systems and, if applied correctly, it can be a successful tool in combating corruption and organised crime (see, among other authorities, Natsvlishvili and Togonidze, v. Georgia (no. 9043/05, § 90, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  The Court must therefore verify that at the time when an accused person performed the act which led to his being prosecuted and convicted there was in force a legal provision which made that act punishable, and that the punishment imposed did not exceed the limits fixed by that provision (see Berardi and Mularoni v. San Marino, nos. 24705/16 and 24818/16, §§ 40-41, 10 January 2019; see also Coëme and Others v Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 145, ECHR 2000-VII; Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-IV; and Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 80, ECHR 2013).

 
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  ERKAPIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2006-IX, and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 70, 25 April 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  It particularly notes the fact that the first applicant was expelled after having been given prior warnings (see paragraph 49 above; contrast and compare with Idalov v. Russia [GC] no. 5826/03, §§ 176-178, 22 May 2012), and only during the last hearing before the appellate court.
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 12391/06

  In such circumstances, the applicants did not face a more far-reaching detriment than they would have, had the provision in question not been applied (see Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 69, ECHR 2015 and contrast Welch v. the United Kingdom, 9 February 1995, § 34, Series A no. 307-A).

• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 42371/08

  TORTLADZE v. GEORGIA

  As regards the applicant's complaint about the lack of access to the Supreme Court, the Court recalls that the same issue has already been examined in the context of the relevant Georgian procedural law and practice and was found to have been compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kadagishvili v. Georgia, no. 12391/06, § 175, 14 May 2020; Kobiashvili, cited above, § 76; Kuparadze v. Georgia, no. 30742/09, §§ 75-77, 21 September 2017; and Tchaghiashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19312/07, § 34, 2 September 2014).