Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PERRE v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 23.11.1976 - 5100/71

  ENGEL AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1999 - 32387/96

  With this proviso, it leaves it to the competent national authorities to decide upon the relevance of proposed evidence insofar as is compatible with the concept of a fair trial which dominates the whole of Article 6" (see the Engel and others v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 November 1976, Series A no. 22, § 91, pp. 38 and 39).
• EGMR, 22.04.1994 - 15651/89

  SARAIVA DE CARVALHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1999 - 32387/96

  The fact that some of these judges had decided on detention on remand for some of the co-accused cannot be considered to have affected the impartiality of the Court in the applicant's trial (see amongst others, mutatis mutandis, the Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B, p. 38, § 35, and the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 22, § 50).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1999 - 32387/96

  As a general rule, "it is for the national courts, and in particular the court of first instance, to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce" (see the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, § 68; see also, amongst many others, the Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 949, § 48).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1999 - 32387/96

  The fact that some of these judges had decided on detention on remand for some of the co-accused cannot be considered to have affected the impartiality of the Court in the applicant's trial (see amongst others, mutatis mutandis, the Saraiva de Carvalho v. Portugal judgment of 22 April 1994, Series A no. 286-B, p. 38, § 35, and the Hauschildt v. Denmark judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 22, § 50).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1999 - 32387/96

  There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence ; as a general rule, paragraphs 3 (d) and 1 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 statements or at a later stage" (see the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, p. 21, § 47).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.1999 - 32387/96

  The Court recalls that the guarantees in paragraph 3 represent aspects of the concept of a fair trial contained in paragraph 1. It is therefore appropriate to examine the applicant's complaints from the points of view of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 6 taken together (see for example the Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 28, § 75).