Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KURALIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

  The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of his release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, and Satık and Others v. Turkey, no. 31866/96, § 54, 10 October 2000).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

  However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 74, 15 May 2008).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 44069/98

  G.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

  Bearing in mind that the requirements of paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of Article 6 of the Convention amount to specific elements of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under paragraph 1, the Court will examine all the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, in particular, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 31, and G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).

 
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98

  BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

  As the Court has already held in previous judgments, the right set out in paragraph 3 (c) of Article 6 of the Convention is one element, amongst others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings contained in paragraph 1 (see Imbrioscia, cited above, § 37, and Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-X 45).
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

  Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 102; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; and Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 100, 2 April 2009).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

  The Court reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

  Thus, Article 6 -especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275, and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 50, 27 November 2008).

• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09

  LEKA v. ALBANIA

  As to the applicant's contention, submitted for the first time by his lawyer at a hearing before the Court of Appeal, that he was under duress to sign the records of his questioning by the prosecution, the Court notes that the applicant did not raise that issue at all during his trial in the first-instance court (compare Kuralic v. Croatia, no. 50700/07, §§ 41, 46 and 49, 15 October 2009), and that there is no indication in the case file of any such duress.