Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUSAIN c. ITALIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUSAIN v. ITALY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 55990/00

  D.C. contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 18913/03

  In this respect, the adequacy of the information must be assessed in relation to sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3 of Article 6, which confers on everyone the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence (ibid., § 54; see also Mattoccia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, § 60, ECHR 2000-IX, and D.C. v. Italy (dec.), no. 55990/00, 28 February 2002).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 18913/03

  An indictment plays a crucial role in the criminal process, in that it is from the moment of its service that the defendant is formally put on written notice of the factual and legal basis of the charges against him (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 36-37, § 79).
• EGMR, 28.11.1978 - 6210/73

  Luedicke, Belkacem und Koç ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 18913/03

  The Court further notes that the right set out in paragraph 3 (e) of Article 6 to the free assistance of an interpreter signifies that an accused who cannot understand or speak the language used in court has the right to the free assistance of an interpreter for the translation or interpretation of all those documents or statements in the proceedings instituted against him that it is necessary for him to understand in order to have the benefit of a fair trial (see Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A no. 29, p. 20, § 48).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 18913/03

  Article 6 § 3 (a) also affords the defendant the right to be informed not only of the cause of the accusation but also, in detail, of the legal characterisation given to those acts (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 23969/94

  MATTOCCIA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 18913/03

  In this respect, the adequacy of the information must be assessed in relation to sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3 of Article 6, which confers on everyone the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence (ibid., § 54; see also Mattoccia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, § 60, ECHR 2000-IX, and D.C. v. Italy (dec.), no. 55990/00, 28 February 2002).

• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 17494/07

  KAJOLLI c. ITALIE

  Il n'en demeure pas moins que l'assistance prêtée en matière d'interprétation doit permettre à l'accusé de savoir ce qu'on lui reproche et de se défendre, notamment en livrant au tribunal sa version des événements (Husain c. Italie (déc.), no 18913/03, ECHR 2005-III).
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 20307/02

  AHMAD v. ROMANIA

  Moreover, paragraph 3 (e) does not go so far as to require a written translation of all items of written evidence or official documents in the procedure, which suggests that oral linguistic assistance may satisfy the requirements of the Convention (see Husain v. Italy (dec.), no. 18913/03, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA

  In the light of the above, and taking into account that the Convention does not require a written translation of all items of official documents and that oral linguistic assistance may satisfy the requirements of the Convention (see Husain v. Italy (dec.), no. 18913/03, ECHR 2005-III, and Hermi, cited above, § 70), the Court considers that in the present case the applicant received the appropriate linguistic assistance, which allowed him to adequately participate in the trial against him.
• EGMR, 14.05.2019 - 48835/13

  PULA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In any event, the Court observes that this point was not raised in the applicant's appeal or request for an extraordinary review (see Katritsch v. France, no. 22575/08, § 45, 4 November 2010; Kapitonovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 16999/02, 5 April 2007; Husain v. Italy (dec.), no. 18913/03, ECHR 2005-III; and Hudson, cited above).
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 30400/02

  BAKA c. ROUMANIE

  (Husain c. Italie (déc.), no 18913/03, CEDH 2005-III).