Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMIKONYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 25083/05
• EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 25083/05
• EGMR - 25083/05

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

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 25083/05

  The task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Asch v. Austria, 26 April 1991, § 26, Series A no. 203, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 25083/05

  The task of the Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Asch v. Austria, 26 April 1991, § 26, Series A no. 203, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 25083/05

  In such circumstances, the applicant cannot be blamed for not setting out detailed arguments in his appeal lodged on 31 December 2004, and for doing so only following the expiry of the statutory time-limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 252).

 
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 25083/05

  Thus, the statement made by witness O. was corroborated by other, equally weighty evidence in the case (see Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 22, Series A no. 242-A, and Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 25083/05

  For the right of access to be effective, an individual must have a clear and practical opportunity to challenge an act that is an interference with his rights (see Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, § 36, Series A no. 333-B).
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 25083/05

  As a rule, these rights require that an accused should be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either at the time the witness makes his statement or at some later stage of the proceedings (see Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, § 36, Series A no. 191-A).