Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95, 27619/95 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PESTI et FRODL contre l'AUTRICHE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2, Art. 7 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PESTI AND FRODL v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2, Art. 7 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (25) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87
EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95
It seems, in the Court's view, appropriate to look at the applicants' complaints about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings from the point of view of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 6 taken together, especially as the guarantees of paragraph 3 represent specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 of the Convention (see, for example, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgement of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 34, § 33. - EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87
PADOVANI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95
What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public and above all, as far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, in the accused (see the Padovani v. Italy judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, §§ 25 et seq.). - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80
GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95
Furthermore, the verification of the accuracy of the transcript of a trial by a court's registry and, in the present case, in tandem with the Presiding Judge, does not of itself disclose unfairness (cf mutatis mutandis the Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, pp. 27-28, § 71). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95
It does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (see the Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89, and the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33). - EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95
It does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (see the Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89, and the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33).
- EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 28034/04
MULLER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)
27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I). - EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 926/05
Taxquet ./. Belgien
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.03.2021 - C-546/18
Adler Real Estate u.a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 47 der Charta der …
Vgl. auch EGMR, 18. Januar 2000, Pesti und Frodl/Österreich (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2000:0118DEC002761895, § 4 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung), und vom 22. November 1985, Bryan/Vereinigtes Königreich (ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:1122JUD001917891, § 47).
- EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08
KASHLEV v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 12555/03
MULLER v. AUSTRIA
27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I (extracts)). - EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 37301/03
HAUSER-SPORN v. AUSTRIA
27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I (extracts)). - EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06
R. AND H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I). - EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 28328/03
AIGNER v. AUSTRIA
27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I). - EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 11082/06
KHODORKOVSKIY v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
27618/95 and 27619/95, 18 January 2000; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, §§ 96 et seq., ECHR 2001-II), but not the "fairness" of the appeal proceedings, which is within the realm of Article 6 of the Convention. - EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 504/08
CASTELLINO c. BELGIQUE
La Belgique à l'époque n'était pas partie au Protocole no 7. La Cour a, d'ailleurs, à plusieurs reprises affirmé que le fait que le réexamen auquel procède une juridiction suprême soit limité aux questions de droit, n'est pas contraire à l'article 6 § 1 (Taxquet c. Belgique, no 926/05, 13 janvier 2009, §§ 82-84, et, mutatis mutandis, Loewenguth c. France (déc.), no 53183/99, CEDH 2000-VI, Pesti et Frodl c. Autriche (déc.), nos 27618/95 et 27619/95, CEDH 2000-I, Deperrois c. France (déc.), no 48203/99, 22 juin 2000, et Ramos Ruiz c. Espagne (déc.), no 65892/01, 19 février 2002). - EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 53183/99
LOEWENGUTH v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04
TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
- EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 24945/04
KRISTJANSSON AND BOASSON v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 19.02.2002 - 65892/01
RAMOS RUIZ contre l'ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 42780/98
I.H., Me.H., R.H. and Mu.H. v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 46005/11
FIRAT c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 44625/06
BALOGIANNIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 29.11.2005 - 8535/02
COGHLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 36190/02
MOSCONI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 74159/01
EGGER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 42780/98
I.H., Me.H., R.H. and Mu.H. v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 23486/12
DORADO BAÚLDE v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 22.05.2006 - 8035/05
PINEIRO NOGUEIRA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 20593/02
MORINGER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 60776/00
POLESHCHUK v. RUSSIA