Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HERMI c. ITALIE
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HERMI v. ITALY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 06.11.2003 - 18114/02
- EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 18114/02
- EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
- EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 18114/02
Wird zitiert von ... (34) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86
KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
Taking into account the nature of the appeal proceedings in the instant case, therefore, the defendant's presence was not required within the meaning of the Court's case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, p. 44, §§ 60-63). - EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 39676/98
ROJAS MORALES c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
The Court consequently accepts that the applicant incurred expenses in order to redress the Convention violation in the domestic legal system (see, mutatis mutandis, Rojas Morales v. Italy, no. 39676/98, § 42, 16 November 2000). - EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01
EINHORN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
It remains to be established whether he waived that right (see Colozza v. Italy, cited above, p. 15, § 29, and Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI).
- EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 61828/00
SAKKOPOULOS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
It therefore considers that only a proportion of the expenses incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before it should be reimbursed (see, mutatis mutandis, Sakkopoulos v. Greece, no. 61828/00, § 59, 15 January 2004, and Cianetti v. Italy, no. 55634/00, § 56, 22 April 2004). - EGMR, 22.04.2004 - 55634/00
CIANETTI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
It therefore considers that only a proportion of the expenses incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before it should be reimbursed (see, mutatis mutandis, Sakkopoulos v. Greece, no. 61828/00, § 59, 15 January 2004, and Cianetti v. Italy, no. 55634/00, § 56, 22 April 2004). - EGMR, 01.07.2004 - 36681/97
VITO SANTE SANTORO v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
Having regard to the information in its possession and its relevant practice, it considers it reasonable to award EUR 2, 500 under this head (see, mutatis mutandis, Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, § 68, ECHR 2004-...). - EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 24954/94
TIERCE ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
At first instance, the concept of a fair trial means that a person charged with a criminal offence should be entitled to attend the hearing (Tierce and Others v. San Marino, nos. 24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94, § 94, ECHR 2000-IX, and Forcellini v. San Marino, no. 34657/97, § 35, 15 July 2003). - EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85
H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
The Court points out that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial; however, any such waiver must be made in an unequivocal manner and must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic v. Italy, cited above, § 33, and Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66; see also Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000). - EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
The existence of prejudice is relevant only in the context of Article 41 (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 18, § 35 in fine). - EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88
T. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02
Moreover, sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 guarantee to "everyone charged with a criminal offence" the right "to defend himself in person", "to examine or have examined witnesses" and "to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court", and it is difficult to see how he could exercise these rights without being present (see Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 27; T. v. Italy, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, § 26, and F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, § 33; see also Belziuk v. Poland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 570, § 37, and Sejdovic v. Italy, no. 56581/00, § 29, 10 November 2004). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86
F.C.B. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12235/86
ZUMTOBEL v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06
Konstantin Markin ./. Russland
Firstly, a waiver "must not run counter to any important public interest" (he referred to Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII). - EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 7186/09
DI TRIZIO c. SUISSE
La Cour rappelle que les modalités d'application de l'article 6 de la Convention en appel ou en cassation dépendent des particularités de la procédure dont il s'agit ; il faut prendre en compte l'ensemble du procès mené dans l'ordre juridique interne et le rôle qu'y a joué la juridiction d'appel ou de cassation (voir, par exemple, Meftah et autres c. France [GC], nos 32911/96, 35237/97 et 34595/97, § 41, CEDH 2002-VII, et Hermi c. Italie [GC], no 18114/02, § 60, CEDH 2006-XII). - EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 76577/13
Italien verurteilt: 18.000 Euro Entschädigung für Amanda Knox
L'obligation des autorités compétentes ne se limite donc pas à désigner un interprète: il leur incombe en outre, une fois alertées dans un cas donné, d'exercer un certain contrôle ultérieur de la valeur de l'interprétation assurée (Hermi c. Italie [GC], no 18114/02, § 80, CEDH 2006-XII, Kamasinski c. Autriche, 19 décembre 1989, § 74, série A no 168, Güngör c. Allemagne (déc.), no 31540/96, 17 mai 2001, Cuscani c. Royaume-Uni, no 32771/96, § 39, 24 septembre 2002, Protopapa c. Turquie, no 16084/90, § 80, 24 février 2009 et Vizgirda c. Slovénie, no 59868/08, §§ 75-79, 28 août 2018).
- EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 59868/08
VIZGIRDA v. SLOVENIA
A defendant not familiar with the language used by the court may be at a practical disadvantage if the indictment is not translated into a language which he understands (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 68, ECHR 2006-XII). - EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04
MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA
Under paragraph 3 (a) of Article 6 of the Convention, any person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 68, ECHR 2006-XII). - EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 58222/09
JURICIC v. CROATIA
Where the proceedings before higher courts involve only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, an oral and public hearing is generally not required, provided that such a hearing was held or waived at first instance (see, among many other authorities, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, §§ 27 and 31, Series A no. 134; Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 60-61, ECHR 2006-XII, and Döry, cited above, § 40). - EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11
ZAHIROVIC v. CROATIA
The Court reiterates that a person charged with a criminal offence should, as a general principle based on the notion of a fair trial, be entitled to be present at the first-instance hearing (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 58-59 ECHR 2006-XII). - EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 28634/06
MAIORANO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
Il demanda à être jugé selon la procédure abrégée, qui entraîne, en cas de condamnation, une réduction de peine (pour une description du cadre légal de cette procédure, voir Hermi c. Italie ([GC], no 18114/02, §§ 27-28, CEDH 2006-...). - EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 60244/12
KUZU ET AYAR c. TURQUIE
La disposition en question signifie que l'accusé ne comprenant ou ne parlant pas la langue employée dans le prétoire a droit aux services gratuits d'un interprète afin que lui soit traduit ou interprété tout acte de la procédure engagée contre lui dont il lui faut, pour bénéficier d'un procès équitable, saisir le sens ou le faire rendre dans la langue du tribunal (Luedicke, Belkacem et Koç c. Allemagne, 28 novembre 1978, § 48, série A no 29, Kamasinski c. Autriche, 19 décembre 1989, § 74, série A no 168, Hermi c. Italie [GC], no 18114/02, § 69, CEDH 2006-XII, et Baytar, précité, § 49). - EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 63446/13
LOREFICE c. ITALIE
La Cour rappelle que les modalités d'application de l'article 6 de la Convention aux procédures d'appel dépendent des caractéristiques de la procédure dont il s'agit ; il faut prendre en compte l'ensemble du procès mené dans l'ordre juridique interne et le rôle qu'y a joué la juridiction d'appel (Botten c. Norvège, 19 février 1996, § 39, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-I, et Hermi c. Italie [GC], no 18114/02, § 60, CEDH 2006-XII). - EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 29864/03
MULOSMANI v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 22036/10
CHIPER c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 34165/05
R.H. v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 72006/12
JGHARKAVA v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 44240/12
YAKOVLEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
LONIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 37216/17
SA TRANSPORTS IWAN WERTZ c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 08.10.2013 - 28145/10
NOMMAN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 4238/03
MIHAI MOLDOVEANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.08.2010 - 3673/03
STEINIGER c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 24744/03
YUNUS AKTAS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 39586/05
A.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 20307/02
AHMAD v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 52202/07
ATAMANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 16795/15
PETROVICI c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 894/12
MTCHEDLISHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 52640/10
PADLÁS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 56635/13
DI SILVIO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 27091/11
PAPEZ v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 11033/04
THIEBAUX c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 34176/11
YARDIMCI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 20034/11
GIORGINI v. ITALY
- EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 21971/10
SALOGUB v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 28796/05
BATTISTI c. FRANCE