Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HORVATIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Equality of arms) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Horvatic v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 36044/09

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 44069/98

  G.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  The Court must, however, determine whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 59, ECHR 2001-X; Kangasluoma v. Finland (dec.), no. 48339/99, 21 May 2002; and Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos.
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-A, and Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-II).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  Article 6 may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275, and Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 50, 27 November 2008).

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 26137/04

  BARTA v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  Thus, Article 35 § 1 does not require that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports 1996-VI, and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 45, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99

  KANGASLUOMA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  The Court must, however, determine whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 59, ECHR 2001-X; Kangasluoma v. Finland (dec.), no. 48339/99, 21 May 2002; and Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos.
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV; and Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, § 84, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  Remedies available to a litigant at the domestic level are considered effective if they prevent the alleged violation or prevent it from continuing, or if they provide adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII).