Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 49158/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,42463) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FROMMELT v. LIECHTENSTEIN
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 49158/99
- EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 49158/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83
LAMY c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 49158/99
According to the Court's case-law, equality of arms is not ensured if counsel is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his client's detention (see, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29, Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I). - EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88
MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 49158/99
Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it is none the less essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation (see, Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22). - EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94
Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 49158/99
According to the Court's case-law, equality of arms is not ensured if counsel is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his client's detention (see, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29, Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).