Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DIMITROV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 7, Art. 13 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06, 2708/09
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 48059/06
• EGMR, 24.09.2015 - 48059/06
• EGMR - 48059/06

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

• EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 43659/98

  LAKATOS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

  It does not consider that it rendered the proceedings against the applicant unfair as a whole, because he had the opportunity of advancing his defence in respect of the reformulated charge before the appellate and the cassation courts, both of which were able fully to review his case and replace his conviction with an acquittal (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, §§ 48-52, ECHR 2001-II; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001; Feldman v. France (dec.), no. 53426/99, 6 June 2002; Sipavicius v. Lithuania, no. 49093/99, §§ 30-33, 21 February 2002; D.C. v. Italy, cited above; and Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004; and, as examples to the contrary, Drassich v. Italy, no. 25575/04, § 36, 11 December 2007, and Penev v. Bulgaria, no. 20494/04, §§ 37-39, 7 January 2010).
• EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 55990/00

  D.C. contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

  It is not the Court's task to verify whether this was done in breach of the domestic rules of criminal procedure, but merely to assess its effect on the fairness of the proceedings as a whole (see D.C. v. Italy (dec.), no. 55990/00, 28 February 2002).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

  The Court is not a court of appeal from the national courts (see Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)) and it is not its task to verify whether their ruling on that point, which does not appear arbitrary, was correct in terms of Bulgarian law (see Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 43, 14 February 2008, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 48193/99

  BALETTE contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

  It does not consider that it rendered the proceedings against the applicant unfair as a whole, because he had the opportunity of advancing his defence in respect of the reformulated charge before the appellate and the cassation courts, both of which were able fully to review his case and replace his conviction with an acquittal (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, §§ 48-52, ECHR 2001-II; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001; Feldman v. France (dec.), no. 53426/99, 6 June 2002; Sipavicius v. Lithuania, no. 49093/99, §§ 30-33, 21 February 2002; D.C. v. Italy, cited above; and Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004; and, as examples to the contrary, Drassich v. Italy, no. 25575/04, § 36, 11 December 2007, and Penev v. Bulgaria, no. 20494/04, §§ 37-39, 7 January 2010).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 25575/04

  DRASSICH c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

  It does not consider that it rendered the proceedings against the applicant unfair as a whole, because he had the opportunity of advancing his defence in respect of the reformulated charge before the appellate and the cassation courts, both of which were able fully to review his case and replace his conviction with an acquittal (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, §§ 48-52, ECHR 2001-II; Lakatos v. Hungary (dec.), no. 43659/98, 20 September 2001; Feldman v. France (dec.), no. 53426/99, 6 June 2002; Sipavicius v. Lithuania, no. 49093/99, §§ 30-33, 21 February 2002; D.C. v. Italy, cited above; and Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004; and, as examples to the contrary, Drassich v. Italy, no. 25575/04, § 36, 11 December 2007, and Penev v. Bulgaria, no. 20494/04, §§ 37-39, 7 January 2010).
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 36207/03

  RUMYANA IVANOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48059/06

  The Court is not a court of appeal from the national courts (see Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)) and it is not its task to verify whether their ruling on that point, which does not appear arbitrary, was correct in terms of Bulgarian law (see Rumyana Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 36207/03, § 43, 14 February 2008, with further references).