Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUGOSA v. MONTENEGRO

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MUGOSA v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 76522/12

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

• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12

  The primary purpose of the six-month rule is to maintain legal certainty by ensuring that cases raising issues under the Convention are examined within a reasonable time, and to prevent the authorities and other persons concerned from being kept in a state of uncertainty for a long period of time (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 258, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12

  Moreover, subsequent courts failed to rectify this on appeal, including the Constitutional Court itself (see Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, §§ 47-51, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 26321/03

  BIK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12

  The Court must moreover ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (see, for example, X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 148, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Bik v. Russia, no. 26321/03, § 30, 22 April 2010; and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 45, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12

  The Court must moreover ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (see, for example, X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 148, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Bik v. Russia, no. 26321/03, § 30, 22 April 2010; and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 45, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12

  The Court must moreover ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (see, for example, X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 148, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Bik v. Russia, no. 26321/03, § 30, 22 April 2010; and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 45, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

  HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76522/12

  If, however, a submission would, if accepted, be decisive for the outcome of the case, it may require a specific and express reply by the court in its judgment (see Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 303-B and Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303-A).