Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PULLICINO v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12981/87

  SAINTE-MARIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  What matters is the extent and nature of the pre-trial measures taken by the judge (see the above-mentioned Fey judgment, p. 12, § 30; and the Sainte-Marie v. France judgment of 16 September 1992, Series A no. 253, p. 32, § 32).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 - "to defend himself in person", "to examine or have examined witnesses", and "to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court" (see, inter alia, the Colozza v. Italy judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 27; the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 33, § 78; and the above-mentioned Stanford judgment, pp. 10-11, § 26).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  Its task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, as well as the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, inter alia, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34; the Stanford v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, p.10, § 24).

 
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  It is settled case-law that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 18, § 34; the Brumarescu v. Romania judgment of 28 October 1999, § 50, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999).
• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  The Court recalls that the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see the Fey v. Austria judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 28).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  Its task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, as well as the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see, inter alia, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34; the Stanford v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, p.10, § 24).

• EGMR, 01.03.2011 - 15924/05

  WELKE AND BIALEK v. POLAND

  To deny an accused or his lawyer the opportunity to compile notes and to rely on them in the course of argument may give rise to unfairness (see, for example, Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000), and, depending on the circumstances, it may not be an answer to a complaint of such that both parties laboured under the same handicap or that the applicant or his lawyer could rely on their memories to compensate for their inability to take and rely on notes.

  The Court has, on previous occasions, emphasised that an accused's effective participation in a criminal trial must equally include the right to compile notes in order to facilitate the conduct of his defence, irrespective of whether or not he is represented by counsel (see, for example, Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000; Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 59, ECHR 2007/05).

• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Indeed, the defence of the accused's interests may best be served by the contribution which the accused makes to his lawyer's conduct of the case before the accused is called to give evidence (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., and Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000).
• EGMR, 05.12.2002 - 34896/97

  CRAXI c. ITALIE

  Les journalistes doivent s'en souvenir lorsqu'ils rédigent des articles sur des procédures pénales en cours, car les limites du commentaire admissible peuvent ne pas englober des déclarations qui risqueraient, intentionnellement ou non, de réduire les chances d'une personne de bénéficier d'un procès équitable ou de saper la confiance du public dans le rôle tenu par les tribunaux dans l'administration de la justice pénale (Worm c. Autriche, arrêt du 29 août 1997, Recueil 1997-V, p. 1552, § 50 ; Pullicino c. Malte (déc.), no 45441/99, 15 juin 2000, non publiée ; Papon c. France, décision précitée).

 
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

  MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  See, for example, Pullicino v. Malta, (dec.), no. 45441/99, ECHR 2000-II.
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA

  Indeed, the defence of the accused's interests may best be served by the contribution which the accused makes to his lawyer's conduct of the case before the accused is called to give evidence (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., and Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000).
• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 28796/04

  BIVOLARU c. ROUMANIE

  Dès lors, il ne peut pas être établi que la déclaration litigieuse a influencé les juges appelés à statuer dans l'affaire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Pullicino c. Malte (déc.), no 45441/99, 15 juin 2000).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA

  While the trial judge's directions to the jury and other such safeguards in the trial process are central to its assessment in the context of jury cases, the Court has also looked to other indications of objective impartiality, such as the length of time the jury deliberated in the case (see Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000) and whether it returned rationally coherent verdicts on the various charges faced by the applicant and, where relevant, his co-defendants (see Mustafa (Abu Hamza), § 38, and Abdulla Ali, § 98, both cited above).
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 54210/00

  Maurice Papon

  Les journalistes doivent s'en souvenir lorsqu'ils rédigent des articles sur des procédures pénales en cours, car les limites du commentaire admissible peuvent ne pas englober des déclarations qui risqueraient, intentionnellement ou non, de réduire les chances d'une personne de bénéficier d'un procès équitable ou de saper la confiance du public dans le rôle tenu par les tribunaux dans l'administration de la justice pénale (cf. arrêt Worm c. Autriche du 29 août 1997, Recueil 1997-V, p. 1552, § 50 et, plus récemment, Pullicino c. Malte (déc.), n° 45441/99, 15 juin 2000).
• EGMR, 24.04.2007 - 38184/03

  MATYJEK c. POLOGNE

  La Cour réaffirme que la participation effective de l'accusé à son procès pénal doit aussi comporter le droit de rassembler des notes en vue de faciliter la conduite de sa défense et ce, qu'il soit ou non représenté par un avocat (Pullicino c. Malte (déc.), no 45441/99, 15 juin 2000).