Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 23324/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,14632) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ULIMAYEV v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 23324/04
(see, among many other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, cited above, § 65; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99
Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 23324/04
The Court cannot, and must not, usurp the role of Contracting States, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined therein are respected and protected on a domestic level (see Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey [GC] (dec.), no. 46113/99, § 69, ECHR 2010-...). - EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90
STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 23324/04
Generally, the right of an accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial on his case includes not only his right to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings (see Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A no. 282-A). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 26260/02
GOLUBEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 23324/04
The Court reiterates that the physical presence of an accused in the courtroom is highly desirable, but it is not an end in itself: it rather serves the greater goal of securing the fairness of the proceedings, taken as a whole (see Golubev v. Russia (dec.), no. 26260/02, 9 November 2006). - EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03
BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 23324/04
Since the only superior instance for the Judicial Collegium would have been supervisory review, which the Court does not consider to be a remedy to be exhausted (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts), a complaint to the judges present in the courtroom would have been the most appropriate method by which the applicant could have addressed the particular shortcomings in the fairness of the proceedings.