Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GEORGIOU v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2000 - 40042/98

  The Court notes that it is a requirement of fairness under Article 6 § 1, indeed one which is recognised under English law, that the prosecuting authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence for or against the accused (Edwards v the United Kingdom judgment of 25 November 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 36).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2000 - 40042/98

  The applicants rely on the cases of Granger v United Kingdom (judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 174) and Airey v Ireland (judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2000 - 40042/98

  In the absence of any "arguable claim" of a substantive right under the Convention (see the Boyle and Rice judgment v the United Kingdom of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 24, § 54), the Article 13 complaint is also unsustainable.

 
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2000 - 40042/98

  The criteria for establishing whether a "criminal charge" has been determined are the domestic classification of the "offence", the nature of the "offence", and the nature and degree of severity of the potential and actual penalty (see, for example, the Ravnsborg v. Sweden judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B p. 28, § 30 and the Schmautzer v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328, p. 13, § 27).
• EGMR, 23.03.1994 - 14220/88

  RAVNSBORG v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2000 - 40042/98

  The criteria for establishing whether a "criminal charge" has been determined are the domestic classification of the "offence", the nature of the "offence", and the nature and degree of severity of the potential and actual penalty (see, for example, the Ravnsborg v. Sweden judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 283-B p. 28, § 30 and the Schmautzer v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328, p. 13, § 27).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2000 - 40042/98

  However, as in the Bendenoun v. France case (judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, p. 27, §§ 44-48), the penalty was intended as a punishment to deter re-offending, its purpose was both deterrent and punitive and the penalty itself was substantial.

• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 49812/09

  VEGOTEX INTERNATIONAL S.A. c. BELGIQUE

  À supposer même qu'il soit possible de distinguer les éléments de la procédure portant sur l"« accusation en matière pénale'de ceux qui avaient un autre objet, l'examen de la procédure concernant la majoration d'impôt amènera inévitablement la Cour à prendre en considération les éléments de procédure concernant le redressement fiscal (Jussila, précité, § 45 ; voir également Georgiou c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 40042/98, 16 mai 2000, Sträg Datatjänster AB c. Suède (déc.), no 50664/99, 21 juin 2005, et Chambaz c. Suisse, no 11663/04, § 42, 5 avril 2012).