Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 43659/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,37751
EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 43659/98 (https://dejure.org/2001,37751)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.09.2001 - 43659/98 (https://dejure.org/2001,37751)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. September 2001 - 43659/98 (https://dejure.org/2001,37751)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,37751) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 43659/98
    That information should be detailed (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

    IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 43659/98
    The Court recalls that the fairness of proceedings must be assessed with regard to the proceedings as a whole (see, for example, the Miailhe v. France judgment (no. 2) of 26 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1338, § 43, and the Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, pp.
  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

    KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 43659/98
    Particulars of the offence play a crucial role in the criminal process, in that it is from the moment of their service that the suspect is formally put on written notice of the factual and legal basis of the charges against him (Kamasinski v. Austria judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 36-37, § 79).
  • EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 19692/02

    SELIVERSTOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court further recalls that sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 6 § 3 are connected and that the right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation must be considered in the light of the accused's right to prepare his defence (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France, cited above, §§ 52-54, and Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001).

    Taking into account the fact that the judgment in the applicant's case became final and no ordinary appeal lay against it (see Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 39, ECHR 2004-VIII), it appears that there was no further instance where the applicant could have advanced his defence against the reformulated charge (see, by contrast, Dallos, cited above, § 50; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September; Sipavicius, cited above, § 32; and Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004).

  • EGMR, 20.04.2006 - 42780/98

    I.H. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

    That information should be detailed (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II; Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, § 47, 1 March 2001; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

    DIMITROV v. BULGARIA

    It does not consider that it rendered the proceedings against the applicant unfair as a whole, because he had the opportunity of advancing his defence in respect of the reformulated charge before the appellate and the cassation courts, both of which were able fully to review his case and replace his conviction with an acquittal (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, §§ 48-52, ECHR 2001-II; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001; Feldman v. France (dec.), no. 53426/99, 6 June 2002; Sipavicius v. Lithuania, no. 49093/99, §§ 30-33, 21 February 2002; D.C. v. Italy, cited above; and Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004; and, as examples to the contrary, Drassich v. Italy, no. 25575/04, § 36, 11 December 2007, and Penev v. Bulgaria, no. 20494/04, §§ 37-39, 7 January 2010).
  • EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 38414/02

    TANER v. TURKEY

    That information should be detailed (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II; Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, § 47, 1 March 2001; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht