Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIRCETIC v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 30669/15

  In this connection they also relied on Kamasinski v. Austria (19 December 1989, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 30669/15

  The appellate court was therefore called upon to make a full assessment of his guilt or innocence in respect of the charges against him, in the light of not only the arguments that he had raised before the first-instance court, but also of those concerning the alleged failures of that court to establish all the relevant facts and to apply the relevant substantive and procedural rules correctly (see Bosak and Others, cited above, § 106; compare Abdulgadirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24510/06, § 42, 20 June 2013, and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, § 63, 14 November 2013; and contrast Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C, and Hermi, cited above, § 85).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28501/95

  POBORNIKOFF v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 30669/15

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant did not ask to attend the session cannot be held against him (compare Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 68, Series A no. 268-B, and Pobornikoff v. Austria, no. 28501/95, § 32, 3 October 2000 and contrast Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII; Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 117, 118 and 127, 18 December 2018; and Lamatic v. Romania, no. 55859/15, §§ 48 and 62, 1 December 2020).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 30669/15

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant did not ask to attend the session cannot be held against him (compare Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 68, Series A no. 268-B, and Pobornikoff v. Austria, no. 28501/95, § 32, 3 October 2000 and contrast Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII; Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 117, 118 and 127, 18 December 2018; and Lamatic v. Romania, no. 55859/15, §§ 48 and 62, 1 December 2020).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 55859/15

  LAMATIC v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 30669/15

  In these circumstances, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant did not ask to attend the session cannot be held against him (compare Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 68, Series A no. 268-B, and Pobornikoff v. Austria, no. 28501/95, § 32, 3 October 2000 and contrast Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII; Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 117, 118 and 127, 18 December 2018; and Lamatic v. Romania, no. 55859/15, §§ 48 and 62, 1 December 2020).

• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  DELIKTAS v. TÜRKIYE

  In any event, the Court notes that neither the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal nor the Constitutional Court made any mention of, let alone attached any weight to, the applicant's purported failure to expand on that point (see Mircetic v. Croatia, no. 30669/15, § 24, 22 April 2021) or to request the hearing of witnesses when those courts were called upon to examine his request that a hearing be held at the appeal stage.
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 55724/19

  DRACA v. CROATIA

  It could uphold, quash or reverse the first-instance judgment and increase or decrease the sentence imposed by the trial court (see Mircetic v. Croatia, no. 30669/15, § 25, 22 April 2021).