Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  However, an issue may arise under Article 6 where a legitimate expectation is created by the actions of the authorities and a defendant acts upon that legitimate expectation to his detriment (see, for example, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §§ 138 and 139, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  The Secretary of State's decision and the allegations made in support of it therefore fall some way short of the clear declarations as to the applicant's guilt which were made in Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, §§ 38-41, and which gave rise to a finding of a violation of Article 6 § 2 in that case.
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 30779/04

  PATSOURIA ET AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  It is not normally for the Court to determine the appropriateness of a decision to prosecute (see, mutatis mutandis, Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007; Bielaj v. Poland, no. 43643/04, § 56, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  BIELAJ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  It is not normally for the Court to determine the appropriateness of a decision to prosecute (see, mutatis mutandis, Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007; Bielaj v. Poland, no. 43643/04, § 56, 27 April 2010).

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Yet, there is no right as such under the Convention not to be criminally prosecuted (see I.J.L. and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29522/95 and 2 others, § 101, ECHR 2000-IX; Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007; Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 34, 18 January 2011; and International Bank for Commerce and Development AD and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 7031/05, § 129, 2 June 2016, as well as, mutatis mutandis, Artner v. Austria, 28 August 1992, § 21, Series A no. 242-A).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 25551/18

  TADIC v. CROATIA

  It will require cogent evidence that concerns about the impartiality of judges are objectively justified before any breach of Article 6 § 1 can be found (see Craxi, cited above, §§ 99 and 103, and Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 39, 18 January 2011, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA

  The above principles apply equally to jurors as to professional and lay judges (see, among many other authorities, Hanif and Khan v. the United Kingdom, nos. 52999/08 and 61779/08, 20 December 2011; Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, 18 January 2011; and Ekeberg and Others v. Norway, nos.
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The appropriateness of a decision to prosecute thus normally falls out of the scope of the Court's review (see Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007, and Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 34, 18 January 2011).