Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOSKI v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KOSKI v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 53037/99

  VIRGIL IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 53329/10

  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention places the courts, inter alia, under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288; Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, § 33, 21 March 2000; and Virgil Ionescu v. Romania, no. 53037/99, § 44, 28 June 2005; in the context of the right to access to a court see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I; and Albina v. Romania, no. 57808/00, § 30, 28 April 2005; and in the context of the applicant's right to a re-examination of his conviction see Nedzela v. France, no. 73695/01, §§ 55-56, 27 July 2006).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 73695/01

  NEDZELA c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 53329/10

  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention places the courts, inter alia, under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288; Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, § 33, 21 March 2000; and Virgil Ionescu v. Romania, no. 53037/99, § 44, 28 June 2005; in the context of the right to access to a court see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I; and Albina v. Romania, no. 57808/00, § 30, 28 April 2005; and in the context of the applicant's right to a re-examination of his conviction see Nedzela v. France, no. 73695/01, §§ 55-56, 27 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 53329/10

  As the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37), this right can be regarded as effective only if the applicant is in fact "heard", that is, his observations are properly examined by the courts.

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 53329/10

  The personal appearance of the defendant does not assume the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial hearing (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168; and Cani v. Albania, no. 11006/06, § 50, 6 March 2012).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 53329/10

  However, it is also of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended, both at first instance and on appeal (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-B).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 53329/10

  Article 6 § 1 of the Convention places the courts, inter alia, under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant to its decision (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288; Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, § 33, 21 March 2000; and Virgil Ionescu v. Romania, no. 53037/99, § 44, 28 June 2005; in the context of the right to access to a court see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I; and Albina v. Romania, no. 57808/00, § 30, 28 April 2005; and in the context of the applicant's right to a re-examination of his conviction see Nedzela v. France, no. 73695/01, §§ 55-56, 27 July 2006).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 53329/10

  The legislature must accordingly be able to discourage unjustified absences (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A).