Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99

  It will thus consider the applicant's complaint under the two provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99

  The Court's task under the Convention is not to give a ruling as to whether statements of witnesses were properly admitted as evidence, but rather to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see the Doorson v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, p. 470, § 67; the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34).

• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, the principle of subsidiarity does not prevent the Court from reviewing factual findings of the domestic courts if they are "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable" (see I.Z. v. Greece, no. 18997/91, Commission decision of 28 February 1994, Decisions and Reports (DR) 76-B, p. 65, at p. 68, and Babenko v. Ukraine, (dec.), no. 43476/98, 4 May 1999; see also Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000; and Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, § 189, 17 May 2010).
• EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 24221/13

  CARMEL SALIBA v. MALTA

  They noted that contracting states had a greater latitude when dealing with civil cases (Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274) and recapitulated the case-law on the matter (with particular reference to Camilleri v. Malta, (dec.) no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000; Al- Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 35989/14

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (No. 3)

  They relied on the Court's conclusions in Camilleri v. Malta ((dec.) no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000, concerning a complaint under Article 6 § 3 (d) on account of the absence of the accused at the time when witness G.F. had given a statement before the investigating magistrate, while during trial G.F. had retracted his statement).

 
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 24280/09

  BÜYÜKKOL v. TURKEY

  It also points out that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 17074/09

  ERKIZAN v. TURKEY

  It also reiterates that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 55532/09

  KOC v. TURKEY

  It also reiterates that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 38360/09

  CELEBIOGLU v. TURKEY

  It also reiterates that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42942/06

  BAYDILLI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  It also reiterates that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 47091/09

  PASTYRÍK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  It also reiterates that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16

  BERARDI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

  In the Court's opinion the opportunity allowed to the applicants to undermine the probative value of that statement more than compensated for any alleged disadvantage which may have resulted from the fact that the statement had been made in circumstances in which they had been unable to challenge its veracity (see, in similar circumstances, Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, ECHR 2000).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  MATOUSEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC