Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 57787/12

  The Court notes at the outset that the present case may raise questions of the applicability of the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, § 122, 20 November 2012, and Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, §§ 39-70, 19 February 2013) and, in particular, those under its criminal limb (see, for example, Bayer v. Germany, no. 8453/04, §§ 37 et seq., 16 July 2009, and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 93-4, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 57787/12

  The applicant referred to the Convention case-law (Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 27, Series A no. 89; Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 II; Hermi, cited above, § 58; Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005; Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268 B; and Cooke v. Austria, no. 25878/94, 8 February 2000) and added that denying him the opportunity to be present at the hearing of his appeal had amounted to an undue restriction on his right of access to the appeal tribunal.
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 57787/12

  In reply, the Government referred to the Court's judgments in the cases of Kamasinski v. Austria (19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168), Ekbatani v. Sweden (26 May 1988, § 27, Series A no. 134), Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom (2 March 1987, § 56, Series A no. 115) and Hermi v. Italy ([GC], no. 18114/02, § 62, ECHR 2006 XII).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 57787/12

  In reply, the Government referred to the Court's judgments in the cases of Kamasinski v. Austria (19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168), Ekbatani v. Sweden (26 May 1988, § 27, Series A no. 134), Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom (2 March 1987, § 56, Series A no. 115) and Hermi v. Italy ([GC], no. 18114/02, § 62, ECHR 2006 XII).
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 8453/04

  Rechtssache B. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 57787/12

  The Court notes at the outset that the present case may raise questions of the applicability of the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, § 122, 20 November 2012, and Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, §§ 39-70, 19 February 2013) and, in particular, those under its criminal limb (see, for example, Bayer v. Germany, no. 8453/04, §§ 37 et seq., 16 July 2009, and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 93-4, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 47195/06

  MÜLLER-HARTBURG v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 57787/12

  The Court notes at the outset that the present case may raise questions of the applicability of the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, § 122, 20 November 2012, and Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, §§ 39-70, 19 February 2013) and, in particular, those under its criminal limb (see, for example, Bayer v. Germany, no. 8453/04, §§ 37 et seq., 16 July 2009, and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 93-4, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58688/11

  HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 57787/12

  The Court notes at the outset that the present case may raise questions of the applicability of the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, § 122, 20 November 2012, and Müller-Hartburg v. Austria, no. 47195/06, §§ 39-70, 19 February 2013) and, in particular, those under its criminal limb (see, for example, Bayer v. Germany, no. 8453/04, §§ 37 et seq., 16 July 2009, and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 93-4, ECHR 2013).