Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.07.2001 - 48898/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,23012
EGMR, 25.07.2001 - 48898/99 (https://dejure.org/2001,23012)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.07.2001 - 48898/99 (https://dejure.org/2001,23012)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Juli 2001 - 48898/99 (https://dejure.org/2001,23012)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,23012) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PERNA c. ITALIE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d+6 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 10 Non-violation de l'art. 6-3-d+6-1 Non-violation de l'art. 10 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Frais et dépens (procédure nationale) - demande rejetée Remboursement frais et dépens - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PERNA v. ITALY

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d+6 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 10 No violation of Art. 6-3-d+6-1 No violation of Art. 10 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses award - Convention ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 15974/90

    PRAGER ET OBERSCHLICK c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2001 - 48898/99
    It should therefore be protected against unfounded attacks, especially in view of the fact that judges are subject to a duty of discretion that precludes them from replying (see the Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 313, § 34).
  • EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

    VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2001 - 48898/99
    3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses" (see the Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, § 33).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 25716/94

    JANOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2001 - 48898/99
    As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among others, the following judgments: Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31; Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway, no. 23118/93, § 43, to be published in the official reports of the Court's judgments and decisions).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 15890/89

    JERSILD v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2001 - 48898/99
    As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, among others, the following judgments: Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, § 31; Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway, no. 23118/93, § 43, to be published in the official reports of the Court's judgments and decisions).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11508/85

    BARFOD c. DANEMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2001 - 48898/99
    In particular, it must determine whether the interference in issue was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see Janowski v. Poland, cited above, § 30, and the Barfod v. Denmark judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, § 28).
  • EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

    BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2001 - 48898/99
    Consequently, it is not sufficient for an accused to complain that he was not permitted to examine certain witnesses; he must also support his request to call witnesses by explaining the importance of doing so and it must be necessary for the court to take evidence from the witnesses concerned in order to be able to establish the true facts (see Engel and others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, § 91, and Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, § 89, and Eur. Comm. HR, no. 29420/95, Dec. 13.1.1997, DR 88-B, p. 148 at pp. 158 and 159).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht