Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SMAJIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35222/04

  PAVEL IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  Referring to Pavel Ivanov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007), the Constitutional Court held that in the circumstances the applicant could not benefit from the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention.

  The Court notes at the outset that it is not its task to rule on the constituent elements of the offence of which the applicant was convicted under domestic law by reviewing whether those elements actually arose from his actions (see, mutatis mutandis, Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, and Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 29, 27 June 2017).

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention - for instance where, in exceptional cases, such errors may be said to constitute "unfairness" incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015, and Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  For a waiver to be effective it must be shown that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his conduct (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 173, 22 May 2012; Sejdovic, cited above, § 87; and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 34367/14

  BELKACEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  The Court notes at the outset that it is not its task to rule on the constituent elements of the offence of which the applicant was convicted under domestic law by reviewing whether those elements actually arose from his actions (see, mutatis mutandis, Pavel Ivanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35222/04, 20 February 2007, and Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 29, 27 June 2017).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  For a waiver to be effective it must be shown that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his conduct (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 173, 22 May 2012; Sejdovic, cited above, § 87; and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention - for instance where, in exceptional cases, such errors may be said to constitute "unfairness" incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015, and Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017).