Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98

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

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98

  Moreover, Article 6 of the Convention does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 39671/98

  M.A. ET M.M. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98

  It is not for the Court to conjecture as to whether, had this not been so, the domestic court would have in fact provided review satisfying the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, p. 20, § 45, and M.A. and M.M. v. France (dec.), no. 39671/98, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

  O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98

  Facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a charge (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, §§ 34 and 36, ECHR 2001-X).

 
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97

  MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98

  Secondly, it must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 281, § 73, and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 38784/97, § 58, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 29.04.1988 - 10328/83

  BELILOS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98

  Concerning the fact that the Minister of Justice has power to make proposals to the Supreme Judicial Council in respect of the careers of the judges, the Court does not consider that this alone establishes that they are not independent of the executive (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 40, § 79) Moreover, in many Contracting States it is the executive which appoints judges and that does not cast doubt on their independence (see Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 29, § 66).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98

  Concerning the fact that the Minister of Justice has power to make proposals to the Supreme Judicial Council in respect of the careers of the judges, the Court does not consider that this alone establishes that they are not independent of the executive (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, p. 40, § 79) Moreover, in many Contracting States it is the executive which appoints judges and that does not cast doubt on their independence (see Belilos v. Switzerland, judgment of 29 April 1988, Series A no. 132, p. 29, § 66).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98

  This period does not appear excessive (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 22, § 56, and Touroude v. France (dec.), no. 35502/97, 3 October 2000).