Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SERRANO CONTRERAS v. SPAIN (No. 2)

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SERRANO CONTRERAS v. SPAIN

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 2236/19

  The Court recalls that the Committee of Ministers" role in the sphere of execution of its judgments does not prevent it from examining a fresh application concerning measures taken by a respondent State in execution of a judgment if that application contains relevant new information relating to issues undecided by the initial judgment (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 33, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 3324/19

  MEHMET ZEKI DOGAN v. TÜRKIYE (No. 2)

  Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 46 of the Convention to examine the present application 56. The Court reiterates that the Committee of Ministers' role in the sphere of execution of its judgments does not prevent the Court from examining a fresh application concerning measures taken by a respondent State in the execution of a judgment if that application contains relevant new information relating to issues undecided by the initial judgment (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 33, ECHR 2015, and Serrano Contreras v. Spain (no.2), no. 2236/19, § 24, 26 October 2021).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 8000/21

  JURISIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  Indeed, the majority in Jurisic (no. 2) do not include any reasoning referring to a possible domestic judicial misinterpretation of Jurisic (no. 1) (see, as a recent example of a finding of "misinterpretation", Serrano Contreras v. Spain (no. 2), no. 2236/19, 26 October 2021).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 39272/15

  REPESCO ET REPESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle rappelle avoir déjà jugé que l'examen d'un recours qui amène une juridiction nationale à confronter une condamnation définitive aux constats de violation de la Convention, opérés par la Cour, et qui offre à cette instance interne le pouvoir d'ordonner le réexamen de l'affaire, était susceptible d'être déterminant pour le bien-fondé de l'accusation pénale et de faire entrer en jeu les garanties offertes par l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (ibidem, §§ 69 et 72, et Serrano Contreras c. Espagne (no 2), no 2236/19, §§ 27-28, 26 octobre 2021).