Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERHANI v. ALBANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 No-violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 34130/96

  MOREL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  The Court consequently considers that the participation of two judges in the adoption of the judgment of 19 March 2002 did not undermine the impartiality of the Court of Appeal since the applicant's misgivings cannot be regarded as objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Sainte-Marie v. France, 16 December 1992, §§ 32-34, Series A no. 253-A and Morel v. France, no. 34130/96, §§ 48-50, ECHR 2000-VI; see, a contrario, Castillo Algar, cited above, §§ 47-51, and Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  The rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Vozhigov v. Russia, no. 5953/02, § 51, 26 April 2007; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II; and Solakov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  Furthermore, the period during which the applicant absconded to Italy (17 July 1996 to 29 November 2001) should be excluded from the overall length of the proceedings (see Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, § 70, 6 November 2008; Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 81, ECHR 2003-IX; and Girolami v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 196-E, § 13).

 
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 46845/99

  INDRA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  The Court consequently considers that the participation of two judges in the adoption of the judgment of 19 March 2002 did not undermine the impartiality of the Court of Appeal since the applicant's misgivings cannot be regarded as objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Sainte-Marie v. France, 16 December 1992, §§ 32-34, Series A no. 253-A and Morel v. France, no. 34130/96, §§ 48-50, ECHR 2000-VI; see, a contrario, Castillo Algar, cited above, §§ 47-51, and Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  The Court points out that the existence of impartiality for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined by a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also by an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see, among many other authorities, Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, § 74, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence will be violated if, without the accused's having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is guilty (see, for example, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 91, Series A no. 146).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12981/87

  SAINTE-MARIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  The Court consequently considers that the participation of two judges in the adoption of the judgment of 19 March 2002 did not undermine the impartiality of the Court of Appeal since the applicant's misgivings cannot be regarded as objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Sainte-Marie v. France, 16 December 1992, §§ 32-34, Series A no. 253-A and Morel v. France, no. 34130/96, §§ 48-50, ECHR 2000-VI; see, a contrario, Castillo Algar, cited above, §§ 47-51, and Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 51-55, 1 February 2005).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 10508/02

  GJONBOCARI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05

  It reiterates its findings in Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania (no. 10508/02, §§ 73-82, 23 October 2007) and Marini v. Albania (no. 3738/02, §§ 147-158, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts) that there was no effective remedy in respect of the length of civil proceedings.

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 46632/13

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  That said, decisions that are "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable" may be found to be incompatible with the guarantees of a fair hearing (see Khamidov, cited above, § 107; Berhani v. Albania, no. 847/05, §§ 50-56, 27 May 2010; Ajdaric v. Croatia, no. 20883/09, §§ 47-52, 13 December 2011; and AnÄ‘elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, §§ 26-29, 9 April 2013).
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 28221/08

  GATT v. MALTA

  La Cour, maîtresse de la qualification juridique des faits de la cause (Castravet c. Moldova, no 23393/05, § 23, 13 mars 2007, Marchenko c. Ukraine, no 4063/04, § 34, 19 février 2009, et Berhani c. Albanie, no 847/05, § 46, 27 mai 2010), n'est pas liée par celle que leur attribuent les parties.
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 36618/06

  ÜRÜN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle que, maîtresse de la qualification juridique des faits de la cause (Martchenko c. Ukraine, no 4063/04, § 34, 19 février 2009, et Berhani c. Albanie, no 847/05, § 46, 27 mai 2010), elle n'est pas liée par celle que leur attribuent les parties.

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 430/13

  FAYSAL PAMUK v. TURKEY

  If the accused had sufficient and adequate opportunity to challenge such statements, at the time they were taken or at a later stage of the proceedings, their use does not run counter to the guarantees of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Berhani v. Albania, no. 847/05, § 51, 27 May 2010, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 26866/05

  SHKALLA v. ALBANIA

  It does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a government (see Berhani v. Albania, no. 847/05, § 46, 27 May 2010; and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11006/06

  CANI v. ALBANIA

  It does not consider itself bound by the characterisation given by an applicant or a government (see Berhani v. Albania, no. 847/05, § 46, 27 May 2010; and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, ECHR 2009-...).