Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PERIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).
• EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 40847/98

  TAMMINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  This principle applies, inter alia, to the application of procedural rules concerning the nomination of witnesses by parties (see Tamminen v. Finland, no. 40847/98, § 38, 15 June 2004).
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79

  FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  Most significantly for the present case, it is clear that the requirement of equality of arms, in the sense of a fair balance between the parties, applies in principle to such cases as well as to criminal cases (see Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, p. 17, § 44 and Dombo Beheer, cited above, p. 19, § 33).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law (see, mutatis mutandis, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 20, § 39), the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see Pitkänen v. Finland, no. 30508/96, § 59, 9 March 2004).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  In this connection the Court observes that, although it is not its task to examine whether the court's refusal to admit the evidence submitted by the applicant was well-founded, in its assessment of compliance of the procedure in question with the principle of equality of arms which is a feature of the wider concept of a fair trial (see Ekbatani v. Sweden, judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 14, § 30), significant importance is attached to appearances and to the increased sensitivity of the public to the fair administration of justice (see Borgers v. Belgium, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 31, § 24).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken and submitted, were fair within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (see, inter alia, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, pp. 18, 19, § 31.).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46, and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC] no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).

• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Toutefois, quel que soit le système d'instruction pénale, dès lors que l'accusé a choisi de se défendre de manière active, il doit se voir reconnaître le droit de recueillir et de produire des preuves « dans les mêmes conditions'que le ministère public (voir, mutatis mutandis, Dombo Beheer B.V. c. Pays-Bas, 27 octobre 1993, § 33, série A no 274 ; voir aussi Peric c. Croatie, no 34499/06, § 19, 27 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

  LETINCIC v. CROATIA

  It is left to the national authorities to ensure in each individual case that the requirements of a fair hearing are met (see Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, § 19, 27 March 2008).
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 61985/12

  FLEISCHNER v. GERMANY

  Auch wenn die innerstaatlichen Gerichte in zivilrechtlichen Fällen über einen größeren Spielraum verfügen (siehe Peric./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 34499/06, Rdnr. 18, 27.

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 48173/18

  CANGI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, § 17, 27 March 2008; and Carmel Saliba v. Malta, no. 24221/13, § 63, 29 November 2016).
• EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 24221/13

  CARMEL SALIBA v. MALTA

  While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, § 17, 27 March 2008).
• EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 59052/19

  GUIDI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

  As to the ancillary complaint raised (see paragraph 44 above), even assuming it can be considered separate from the one examined above, the Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, § 17, 27 March 2008).
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

  PAVLOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, § 17, 27 March 2008).
• EGMR, 21.12.2021 - 12889/19

  GROZA v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates the general principles set out in its case-law for assessing the fairness of proceedings, including questions concerning the admissibility of evidence, the equality of arms and the courts" obligation to give reasons for their decisions (see Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, §§ 19 and 24, 27 March 2008; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 98, ECHR 2009; Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015; Letincic v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, §§ 47 and 49, 3 May 2016; Rachita v. Romania, no. 15987/09, §§ 51 and 57, 17 May 2016; Devinar v. Slovenia, no. 28621/15, § 53, 22 May 2018; López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 2229/15

  KARAJANOV v.

  In that regard, the Court notes that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, and Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, § 17, 27 March 2008).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 52351/14

  VASILEVSKI v.

  In so far as the applicant complained of the first-instance court's decision to admit the impugned material into evidence, contrary to domestic procedural rules, the Court reiterates that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law and that as a general rule it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, § 17, 27 March 2008; and Karajanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2229/15, § 50, 6 April 2017).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 38462/14

  KOMSO v. CROATIA