Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SUHADOLC v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08

  The Court will proceed on the assumption that Article 6 is applicable to the facts of the case (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, §§ 47-56, Series A no. 73; Falk v. Nederlands (dec.), no. 66273/01, ECHR 2004-XI, and Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 39, ECHR 1998-VII).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08

  An oral hearing may not be required where there are no issues of credibility or contested facts which necessitate an oral presentation of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses and where the accused was given an adequate opportunity to put forward his case in writing and to challenge the evidence against him (see Jussila, cited above, §§ 41-2, 47-48, and, mutatis mutandis, Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 32, Series A no. 212-A).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08

  Furthermore, when accepting that a hearing has not been necessary in the circumstances of a particular case, the Court has also had regard to the minor sum at stake or the minor character of the offence (Jussila, cited above, § 48; see also, mutatis mutandis, Kammerer v. Austria, no. 32435/06, §§ 28-9, 12 May 2010; and Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C 33).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 66273/01

  Verhältnismäßiger Schutz der Unschuldsvermutung gegen strict liability-Delikte …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08

  The Court will proceed on the assumption that Article 6 is applicable to the facts of the case (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, §§ 47-56, Series A no. 73; Falk v. Nederlands (dec.), no. 66273/01, ECHR 2004-XI, and Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 39, ECHR 1998-VII).
• EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 24954/94

  TIERCE ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 57655/08

  The Court recalls that the principle of an oral and public hearing is particularly important in the criminal context, where the accused must generally be able to attend a hearing at first instance (Tierce and Others v. San Marino, nos. 24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94, § 94, ECHR 2000-IX).

• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 44164/14

  Pharma-Erbe siegt vor EGMR: LG Dresden hat Recht auf faires Verfahren verletzt

  Unter Bezugnahme auf die Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs in der Rechtssache Suhadolc./. Slowenien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 57655/08, 17. November 2011) trug die Regierung vor, dass es mit der Konvention vereinbar sei, wenn das innerstaatliche Recht die Frage der Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung in das Ermessen der zuständigen Gerichte stelle.
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 18640/10

  GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  However, the obligation to hold a hearing is admittedly not absolute (see Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A) and there may be proceedings in which an oral hearing may not be required, for example where there are no issues of credibility or contested facts which necessitate a hearing and the courts may fairly and reasonably decide the case on the basis of the parties" submissions and other written materials (see, for example, Döry v. Sweden, no. 28394/95, § 37, 12 November 2002; Pursiheimo v. Finland (dec.), no. 57795/00, 25 November 2003; Jussila, cited above, § 41; and Suhadolc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011, in which the Court held that the lack of a public oral hearing created no appearance of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, in a case concerning driving in excess of the speed limit and driving under the influence of alcohol, where the evidence against the accused had been obtained using technical devices).
• EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 23621/11

  Fröbrich ./. Deutschland - Stasi-Informant muss Entschädigung wegen DDR-Haft …

  Unter Bezugnahme auf die Rechtssache Suhadolc./. Slowenien ((Entsch.) Individualbeschwerde Nr. 57655/08, 17. November 2011) trug die Regierung vor, dass es nicht von vornherein im Widerspruch zur Konvention stehe, die Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung in das Ermessen der zuständigen Gerichte zu stellen.

 
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 10390/09

  BERDAJS v. SLOVENIA

  For the relevant domestic law and practice see Suhadolc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011.

  The Court notes that the principles regarding the requirement of an oral hearing in proceedings concerning minor offences were set out in Suhadolc v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011) and Flisar (cited above, §§ 33-35).

• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 68954/13

  EDIZIONI DEL ROMA SOCIETA COOPERATIVA A.R.L. ET EDIZIONI DEL ROMA S.R.L. c. …

  Tel est notamment le cas pour les affaires ne soulevant pas de question de crédibilité ou ne suscitant pas de controverse sur les faits rendant nécessaire une confrontation orale, et pour lesquelles les tribunaux peuvent se prononcer de manière équitable et raisonnable sur la base des conclusions écrites des parties et des autres pièces du dossier (voir, par exemple, Döry c. Suède, no 28394/95, § 37, 12 novembre 2002, Pursiheimo c. Finlande (déc.), no 57795/00, 25 novembre 2003, Jussila, précité, § 41, et Suhadolc c. Slovénie (déc.), no 57655/08, 17 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 29426/08

  MEROT D.O.O. AND STORITVE TIR D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  In particular, in the present case the issues pertinent to the confiscation of the applicant companies" yachts were purely legal and did not require the hearing of witnesses or the taking of other oral evidence (see, for example, Saccoccia v. Austria, no. 69917/01, §§ 77-80, 18 December 2008 and, a fortiori, Suhadolc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 16472/20

  KODRIC v. SLOVENIA

  As regards the applicant's argument that during such fresh examination his constitutional complaint should have been decided by a reasoned decision on the merits in order to eliminate any doubt about fairness of the proceedings, the Court refers to its established case-law to the effect that for the national superior courts - such as the Constitutional Court - it suffices, when declining to admit a complaint, to simply refer to the legal provisions governing that procedure if the questions raised by the complaint - as in the present case -are not of fundamental importance (see, among many authorities, Suhadolc v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011, and, regarding the same grounds for the dismissal of the constitutional complaint as in the present case, Ahac and Others v. Slovenia (dec.) [Committee], no. 80531/12, 16 March 2021).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 64399/11

  TOMA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Compte tenu du caractère très limité de la nature des questions qui se posaient, la Cour estime que les juges pouvaient se prononcer de manière équitable et raisonnable sur la base des conclusions présentées par les parties et d'autres pièces, sans une appréciation directe des preuves soumises par le requérant en personne (comparer avec Suhadolc c. Slovénie (déc.), no 57655/08, 17 mai 2011, et Aleksandr Dementyev, précité, §§ 45-46).
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 16128/08

  PETRUSEVSKI v. SLOVENIA

  For the relevant domestic law and practice see Suhadolc v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 27091/11

  PAPEZ v. SLOVENIA

  For the relevant provisions of the Minor Offences Act, see Suhadolc v. Slovenia ((dec.), no. 57655/08, 17 May 2011) and Flisar v. Slovenia (no. 3127/09, §§ 13-16, 29 September 2011).
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 48134/15

  BOJIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 44070/08

  MALEC v. SLOVENIA