Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55439
EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,55439)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.06.2011 - 4429/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,55439)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juni 2011 - 4429/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,55439)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55439) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

    HADI v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    At the outset the Court reiterates that in a number of its decisions and judgments concerning Croatia it has already examined various issues about the fairness of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court as well as issues concerning the rights guaranteed under Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 36 and 37, 5 February 2009; Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 108- 110, ECHR 2010-...; Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, §§ 112-126, 8 April 2010; and HaÄ?i v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, §§ 43-47, 1 July 2010).

    By declaring the applicant's constitutional complaints inadmissible simply because a fresh decision extending his detention had been adopted in the meantime, the Constitutional Court did not satisfy the requirement "that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy" (see Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 126, 8 April 2010, and HaÄ?i v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, § 47, 1 July 2010).

  • EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 43434/98

    COBIANCHI c. ITALIE (N° 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    Furthermore, it is the Court's well-established practice that the proceedings following an appeal on points of law or an appeal for cassation fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, H.E. v. Austria, no. 33505/96, §§ 14 and 18, 11 July 2002, and Cobianchi v. Italy (no. 1), no. 43434/98, §§ 8 and 11, 9 November 2000).
  • EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

    KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    In this connection the Court reiterates 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 (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 33505/96

    H.E. v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    Furthermore, it is the Court's well-established practice that the proceedings following an appeal on points of law or an appeal for cassation fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, H.E. v. Austria, no. 33505/96, §§ 14 and 18, 11 July 2002, and Cobianchi v. Italy (no. 1), no. 43434/98, §§ 8 and 11, 9 November 2000).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    In this connection the Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 5 § 4 enshrines, as does Article 6 § 1, the right of access to a court, which can only be subject to reasonable limitations that do not impair its very essence (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 82-90, ECHR 2003-I, and Bochev, cited above, § 70).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

    DAYANAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    Neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer, nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings, could remedy the defects which had occurred during the applicant's custody (see Salduz, cited above, § 58; Amutgan v. Turkey, no. 5138/04, § 18, 3 February 2009; and Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, § 33, ECHR 2009-...).
  • EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

    CAN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    In this respect, the Court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial (Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, § 50, Series A no. 96).
  • EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

    POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    The Court further reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of fair trial (Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2013 - 77562/01

    SAN LEONARD BAND CLUB CONTRE MALTE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
    "23. The Court firstly observes that the actual name given to the proceedings in the domestic legal system or the fact that the national jurisdictions have considered them as an extraordinary remedy cannot be considered determinant: what is decisive is the nature and the scope of the proceedings at issue (see San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, § 41, ECHR 2004-IX).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

    WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

    JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

    ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

    NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

    HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

    WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht