Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MTCHEDLISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MTCHEDLISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 37376/05

  TALABER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 894/12

  The Court would not exclude the possibility that in the criminal sphere the nature of the issues to be dealt with before the tribunal or court may not require an oral hearing (see Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-XIV, and Talabér v. Hungary, no. 37376/05, § 24, 29 September 2009).

  Bearing in mind the particularities of the case, notably the "age" of the application before the Court, the fact that the applicant had already been released under the Amnesty Act, as well as the dilemma regarding how realistic the prospect is of reopening or reviewing the case (although it is understood that Georgian law allows for a retrial), I find that - for this specific case - it would have been appropriate to adopt a similar approach as in the cases of Vorotnikova v. Latvia (no. 68188/13) and Talabér v. Hungary (no. 37376/05) with regard to Article 41.

• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 894/12

  According to the Court's case-law, 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 § 1 even though the appellant was not given the opportunity to give evidence in person before the appeal or cassation court (see Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 31, Series A no. 134, and Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 31, Series A no. 212-C).
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

  HERMI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 894/12

  The Court reiterates that the manner of the application of Article 6 to proceedings before courts of appeal depends on the special features of the proceedings involved; account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order and of the role of the appellate court therein (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 60, ECHR 2006-XII, and Popovici v. Moldova, nos.
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 289/04

  POPOVICI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 894/12

  289/04 and 41194/04, § 66, 27 November 2007).

• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  DELIKTAS v. TÜRKIYE

  In that connection, the Court notes that in cases where the facts forming the basis of an accusation against the accused consist of evidence of a subjective and intangible nature, such as statements made by the accused or witnesses whose credibility may have an important bearing on a first-instance court's finding, a second-instance court which is empowered to review a case as regards questions of fact and law cannot leave a hearing request unanswered (see Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia, no. 894/12, § 39, 25 February 2021, and Becker, cited above, § 41, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 48309/17

  ORHAN SAHIN v. TÜRKIYE

  In that connection, the Government's contention that the Court of Cassation had not called into question the accuracy and validity of A.Y.'s statements has no decisive bearing on the Court's examination under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are autonomous in relation to those of national legislation or practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia, no. 894/12, § 36, 25 February 2021).
• EGMR - 15525/23 (anhängig)

  MAKOVAC FRANKA v. SLOVENIA and 1 other application

  (b) Was the dispensing with an oral hearing in the present case justified (see Sancakli v. Turkey, no. 1385/07, § 45, 15 May 2018; Flisar v. Slovenia, no. 3127/09, § 38, 29 September 2011; and Produkcija Plus Storitveno podjetje d.o.o. v. Slovenia, no. 47072/15, § 54, 23 October 2018) and did the domestic courts provide sufficient reason for their decision not to hold an oral hearing (see Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia, no. 894/12, § 39, 25 February 2021)?.