Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time) ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  In order to decide this question, regard must be had, among other considerations, to the specific features of the proceedings in question and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the appeal court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it and of their importance to the appellant (see, among many other authorities, Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 59, Series A no. 268-B; Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 62, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  The personal attendance of the defendant does not necessarily take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  In appeal proceedings reviewing the case both as to facts and as to law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, still less a right to appear in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C).

 
• EGMR, 24.05.1991 - 12744/87

  QUARANTA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  It thus leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their legal systems, the Court's task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is consistent with the requirement of a fair trial (see Quaranta v. Switzerland, 24 May 1991, § 30, Series A no. 205).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both the prosecution and the defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations made and the evidence adduced by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  However, such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner; it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-...), and it must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  Leave-to-appeal proceedings and proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6, although the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that he had been heard by a first-instance court (see, among other authorities, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 58, Series A no. 115, as regards the issue of leave to appeal, and Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 30, Series A no. 74, as regards the court of cassation).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 32165/02

  Leave-to-appeal proceedings and proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6, although the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that he had been heard by a first-instance court (see, among other authorities, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 58, Series A no. 115, as regards the issue of leave to appeal, and Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, § 30, Series A no. 74, as regards the court of cassation).

• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 21272/03

  SAKHNOVSKI c. RUSSIE

  Dans un certain nombre d'affaires russes, la procédure pénale interne a été rouverte peu après la communication de l'affaire au Gouvernement, mais des mois, voire des années, après la clôture de la procédure initiale (voir, parmi d'autres, Zaïtsev c. Russie, no 22644/02, §§ 9-11, 16 novembre 2006 ; Lariaguine et Aristov c. Russie, nos 38697/02 et 14711/03, §§ 18-19, 8 janvier 2009 ; Sibgatoulline c. Russie, no 32165/02, § 13, 23 avril 2009 ; Baklanov c. Russie (déc.), no 68443/01, 6 mai 2003 ; Mikadzé c. Russie (déc.), no 52697/99, 3 mai 2005 ; Gorodnitchev c. Russie (déc.), no 52058/99, 3 mai 2005 ; Fedorov c. Russie (déc.), no 63997/00, 6 octobre 2005 ; Fedosov c. Russie (déc.), no 42237/02, 25 janvier 2007, et Makhkyagin c. Russie (déc.), no 39537/03, 1er octobre 2009).
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12

  JGHARKAVA v. GEORGIA

  The Court has held that the duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom - either during the original proceedings or in a retrial - ranks as one of the essential requirements of Article 6 (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005, and Sibgatullin v. Russia, no. 32165/02, § 33, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 26036/08

  LALMAHOMED v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, it is quite possible that leave-to-appeal proceedings may comply with the requirements of Article 6, even though the appellant be not given an opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal court, provided that he or she had at least the opportunity to be heard by a first-instance court (see, in particular, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 58, Series A no. 115; more recently, Sibgatullin v. Russia, no. 32165/02, § 35, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 52202/07

  ATAMANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that the Government provided a copy of the telegram to prove that the applicant and his counsel were duly informed of the appeal hearing (see, a contrario, Sibgatullin v. Russia, no. 32165/02, § 48, 23 April 2009).