Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,65070) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
- EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 17095/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (16)
- EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96
SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
The same paragraphs, taken together, require the Contracting States to take positive steps to enable the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him, such measures being part of the diligence the Contracting States must exercise in order to ensure that the rights guaranteed by Article 6 are enjoyed in an effective manner (see Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 67, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85
DELTA c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
The rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or to a decisive extent, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Delta v. France, judgment of 19 December 1990, § 37, Series A no. 191-A, and Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, § 35, Series A no. 194-A). - EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87
ARTNER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
If there has been no negligence on the part of the authorities, the impossibility of securing the appearance of a witness at the trial does not in itself make it necessary to halt the prosecution (see Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, § 21).
- EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence; as a general rule, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of Article 6 require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him, either when he makes his statement or at a later stage (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
On the basis of the materials in the case file and the Government's observations, the Court finds it established that the entire period of the applicant's detention was authorised and extended by the domestic courts as required by Articles 104 and 1041 of the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force (see, mutatis mutandis, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, 31 July 2000, §§ 65-70, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00
LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
Continued detention may be justified in a given case only if there are clear indications of a genuine public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the right to liberty (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 70, 28 November 2002). - EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01
SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
The Court reiterates that in principle it is the judicial orders that it is called to assess in the light of Article 5 § 3 (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 110, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)). - EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01
KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02
The Court reiterates that a court's decision to order and maintain a custodial measure would not breach Article 5 § 1 provided that the court had acted within its jurisdiction, had power to make an appropriate order, and had given reasons for its decision to maintain the custodial measure, for which it had also set a time-limit (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 62, 8 June 2006; and Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, §§ 41-46, 24 May 2007). - EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02
MORKUNAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 28957/02
PSHEVECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02
SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland