Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96, 35237/97, 34595/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,37415
EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96, 35237/97, 34595/97 (https://dejure.org/2002,37415)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.07.2002 - 32911/96, 35237/97, 34595/97 (https://dejure.org/2002,37415)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juli 2002 - 32911/96, 35237/97, 34595/97 (https://dejure.org/2002,37415)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,37415) 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

    MEFTAH ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
    Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 et 6-3-c en ce qui concerne l'impossibilité de prendre la parole à l'audience de la Cour de cassation Violation de l'art. 6-1 en ce qui concerne l'absence de communication des conclusions de l'avocat général Préjudice moral - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MEFTAH AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
    No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c as regards the fact that the applicant was not permitted to speak at the hearing in the Court of Cassation Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards the failure to supply a copy of the Advocate-General's submissions Non-pecuniary damage - ...

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 ... (99)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

    FRETTE v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    The Court notes that in the instant case the applicants were unable to establish the tenor of the advocate-general's submissions before the hearing in the Court of Cassation and, consequently, were unable to reply thereto by a note to the court in deliberations (see, mutatis mutandis, Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 50, ECHR 2002-I), whereas they were entitled to lodge before the hearing a pleading bearing their signature (see paragraph 24 above).

    This finding is in line with the case-law of the Court which I can in principle agree to (see, as the most recent authority, Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, ECHR 2002-I).

    However, recently in Fretté v. France (no. 36515/97, ECHR 2002-I) the Court ruled that those requirements applied also to a case in which a litigant before the Conseil d'Etat had elected, with the Conseil d'Etat's permission, not to be represented.

  • EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

    KREUZ c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    The Court has often generally stated that the Convention is intended to guarantee "not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective" (see, among other authorities, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 57, ECHR 2001-VI).
  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

    SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    The Court has in some cases accepted that in the sphere of Article 6 of the Convention national authorities - depending on the circumstances - should have regard to the demands of efficiency and economy (see, mutatis mutandis, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 19, § 58, and Beer v. Austria, no. 30428/96, § 18, 6 February 2001).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

    KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    Thus, proceedings for leave to appeal or proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6 even where the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard in person by the appeal or cassation court (see the following judgments: Sutter v. Switzerland, 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 13, § 30; Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 58; Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 14, § 31; Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 44-45, § 106; and Bulut v. Austria, 22 February 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 358, § 41).
  • EGMR, 22.06.1993 - 12914/87

    MELIN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    The Court therefore considers complaints under Article 6 § 3 under those two provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Delta v. France, 19 December 1990, Series A no. 191-A, p. 15, § 34; Vacher v. France, 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2147, § 22; Melin v. France, 22 June 1993, Series A no. 261-A, p. 11, § 21; and Foucher, cited above, p. 464, § 30).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

    UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    The Court reiterates that the guarantees contained in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the general concept of a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1. The various rights of which a non-exhaustive list appears in paragraph 3 reflect certain of the aspects of the notion of a fair trial in criminal proceedings (see, among other authorities, Unterpertinger v. Austria, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, § 29, and Granger v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 174, p. 17, § 43).
  • EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

    Öztürk ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    Furthermore, as a "criminal charge" is an autonomous notion, the Court is not bound by the classifications in domestic law, which have only relative value (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, pp. 17-18, §§ 49-50; Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, p. 20, § 47; and Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2935, § 34).
  • EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

    Klaus Croissant

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    In any event, the right to conduct one's own defence could be regulated by domestic law (see, among other authorities, Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B; Correia de Matos v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48188/99, ECHR 2001-XII).
  • EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

    Pakelli ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    The Court reiterates that the right for everyone charged with a criminal offence to be defended by counsel of his own choosing (see Pakelli v. Germany, judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, p. 15, § 31) cannot be considered to be absolute and, consequently the national courts may override that person's choice when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant, cited above, p. 33, § 29).
  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
    When compliance with paragraph 3 is being reviewed, its basic purpose must not be forgotten nor must it be severed from its roots (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 15, § 32).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

    DELTA c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

    Sutter ./. Schweiz

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

    MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

    DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

    BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 33060/10

    Vertretungsverbot gegen einen Anwalt ohne vorherige Durchführung einer mündlichen

    32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 56, ECHR 2002-VII; Brugger v. Austria, no. 76293/01, § 31, 26 January 2006, with further references).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

    MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

    Given that "criminal charge" is an autonomous notion and having regard to the impact which the procedure for examining an appeal on points of law may have upon the determination of a criminal charge, including the possibility of correcting errors of law, the Court has found that such a procedure is covered by the safeguards of Article 6 (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 40, ECHR 2002-VII), even where it is treated as an extraordinary remedy in domestic law and concerns a judgment against which no ordinary appeal lies.

    Finally, the reading given (in paragraph 64 of the judgment) to the cases of Meftah and Others v. France (ï›GCï, nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, ECHR 2002-VII, § 40) and Morrell and Morris v. the United Kingdom (2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, § 54) is rather strained.

  • EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

    VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

    Looking to European law generally, which provides useful guidance (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, §§ 43-45, 92 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 54, ECHR 2002-VII; and Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 45, ECHR 2002-VII), the Court notes that Pellegrin sought support in the categories of activities and posts listed by the European Commission and by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in connection with the exception to the freedom of movement (see Pellegrin, cited above, § 66).
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