Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDULGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Abdulgadirov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both the prosecution and the defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made and the evidence adduced by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  The personal attendance of the defendant does not necessarily take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  In order to decide this question, regard must be had to, among other considerations, the specific features of the proceedings in question and the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the appeal court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it and of their importance to the appellant (see, among many other authorities, Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 59, Series A no. 268-B; Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 62, ECHR 2006-XII).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the appellate proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  Leave-to-appeal proceedings and proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 even if the appellant has not been given an opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that he was heard by the first-instance court (see, among other authorities, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 58, Series A no. 115, as regards the issue of leave to appeal, and Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 30, Series A no. 74, as regards the cassation stage).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the appellate proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  Leave-to-appeal proceedings and proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 even if the appellant has not been given an opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that he was heard by the first-instance court (see, among other authorities, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 58, Series A no. 115, as regards the issue of leave to appeal, and Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 30, Series A no. 74, as regards the cassation stage).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  In appeal proceedings reviewing a case both as to facts and as to law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, still less a right to appear in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06

  In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the appellate proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).

• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 55724/19

  DRACA v. CROATIA

  Accordingly, the appellate court was called upon to make a full assessment of the applicant's guilt or innocence in respect of the charges against him, in the light of not only the arguments that he had raised before the trial court, but also of those concerning the alleged failures of that court to establish all the relevant facts and to apply the relevant law correctly (see Bosak and Others, cited above, § 106; compare Abdulgadirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24510/06, § 42, 20 June 2013, and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, § 63, 14 November 2013).
• EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 40429/14

  BOSAK AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to make a full assessment of the first applicant's guilt or innocence in respect of the charges against him in the light of not only the arguments he had adduced before the first-instance court, but also those concerning the alleged failures of that court to establish all the relevant facts and to apply the relevant substantive and procedural rules correctly (see Lonic, cited above, § 99, compare Abdulgadirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24510/06, § 42, 20 June 2013, and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, § 63, 14 November 2013; and contrast Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C, and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 85, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 33602/17

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA

  The Supreme Court was therefore called upon to make a full assessment of his guilt or innocence in respect of the charges against him in the light not only of the arguments he had put forward before the courts below, but also of his arguments concerning the alleged failures of those courts to establish all the relevant facts and to apply the applicable substantive and procedural rules correctly (see Lonic, cited above, § 99, and compare Abdulgadirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24510/06, § 42, 20 June 2013, and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, § 63, 14 November 2013; and contrast Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C, and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 85, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 72962/16

  SAPONJA AND KARAULA v. CROATIA

  The appellate courts were therefore called upon to make a full assessment of their guilt or innocence in respect of the charges against them, in the light of not only the arguments they had raised before the first-instance court, but also those concerning the alleged failures of that court to establish all the relevant facts and to apply the relevant substantive and procedural rules correctly (see Bosak and Others, cited above, § 106; compare Abdulgadirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24510/06, § 42, 20 June 2013, and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, § 63, 14 November 2013; and contrast Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C, and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 85, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 22238/13

  ROMIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The appellate courts were therefore called upon to make a full assessment of their guilt or innocence in respect of the charges against them, in the light of not only the arguments that they had raised before the first-instance court, but also those concerning the alleged failures of that court to establish all the relevant facts and to apply the relevant substantive and procedural rules correctly (see Bosak and Others, cited above, § 106; compare Abdulgadirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24510/06, § 42, 20 June 2013, and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, § 63, 14 November 2013; and contrast Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C, and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 85, ECHR 2006-XII).