Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORISOVA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3,, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 6-3-a 6-3-b 6-3-d Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 56891/00

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters the provision of full, detailed information to the defendant concerning the charges against him - and consequently the legal characterisation that the court might adopt in the matter - is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the proceedings are fair (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, the F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 20, § 29; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 13, § 29; Lala v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 12, § 26; and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  The Court reiterates that the principle of equality of arms relied on by the applicant - which is one of the elements of the broader concept of fair trial - requires each party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among many other authorities, Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, judgment of 18 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, pp. 107-8, § 23, and Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, the F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 20, § 29; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 13, § 29; Lala v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 12, § 26; and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34; Mantovanelli v. France, 18 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, pp. 436-37, § 34; and Bernard v. France, 23 April 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 879, § 37).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  In particular, "as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce... Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses" (see Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 33).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, the F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 20, § 29; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 13, § 29; Lala v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 12, § 26; and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  F.C.B. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, the F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 20, § 29; Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 13, § 29; Lala v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 12, § 26; and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 56891/00

  It is accordingly not sufficient for a defendant to complain that he has not been allowed to question certain witnesses; he must, in addition, support his request by explaining why it is important for the witnesses concerned to be heard and their evidence must be necessary for the establishment of the truth (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 38-39, § 91; Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89; and Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 29, ECHR 2003-V).