Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 31560/19 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2023,35734) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LUPOU v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
LUPOU v. ROMANIA
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 53150/12
CUTEAN v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 31560/19
The general principles concerning circumstances where judges who have failed to hear witnesses and a defendant directly deliver a verdict convicting the defendant are set out in Beraru v. Romania, (no. 40107/04, § 64, 18 March 2014), Cutean v. Romania (no. 53150/12, §§ 60-61, 2 December 2014) and Svanidze v. Georgia, (no. 37809/08, §§ 32-33, 25 July 2019). - EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 40107/04
BERARU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 31560/19
The general principles concerning circumstances where judges who have failed to hear witnesses and a defendant directly deliver a verdict convicting the defendant are set out in Beraru v. Romania, (no. 40107/04, § 64, 18 March 2014), Cutean v. Romania (no. 53150/12, §§ 60-61, 2 December 2014) and Svanidze v. Georgia, (no. 37809/08, §§ 32-33, 25 July 2019). - EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 37809/08
SVANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 31560/19
The general principles concerning circumstances where judges who have failed to hear witnesses and a defendant directly deliver a verdict convicting the defendant are set out in Beraru v. Romania, (no. 40107/04, § 64, 18 March 2014), Cutean v. Romania (no. 53150/12, §§ 60-61, 2 December 2014) and Svanidze v. Georgia, (no. 37809/08, §§ 32-33, 25 July 2019). - EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 6962/13
SKARO v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 31560/19
The appeal court found that the statements of M.C. and M.A.I. had not been of sufficient relevance given their close relationship with the applicant and M.C.'s young age (see paragraph 12 above, and contrast ? karo v. Croatia (no. 6962/13, § 28, 6 December 2016).