Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55007
EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11 (https://dejure.org/2011,55007)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.06.2011 - 577/11 (https://dejure.org/2011,55007)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juni 2011 - 577/11 (https://dejure.org/2011,55007)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55007) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10730/84

    BERREHAB v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    In arriving at this conclusion the Court takes into account the Government's stated object of countering unfair business practices and infringement of the rights of workers (paragraph 31 above), for which purposes, among others, it is legitimate to control access of foreign nationals to the domestic labour market (compare, mutatis mutandis, Berrehab v. the Netherlands, 21 June 1988, § 26, Series A no. 138).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01

    Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, § 85, ECHR 2001-II (extracts); Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, §§ 101-109, 12 July 2007; and Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 69-71, 19 September 2008).".
  • EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

    Schießbefehl

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    Article 7 of the Convention cannot be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case, provided that the resultant development is consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen (Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II; K.-H.W. v. Germany [GC], no. 37201/97, § 85, ECHR 2001-II (extracts); Jorgic v. Germany, no. 74613/01, §§ 101-109, 12 July 2007; and Korbely v. Hungary [GC], no. 9174/02, §§ 69-71, 19 September 2008).".
  • EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

    VAN ANRAAT v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    The Court has stated the applicable principles as follows (Kononov v. Latvia [GC], no. 36376/04, §§ 185-187, ECHR 2010-...; Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, § 78, ECHR 2010-... (extracts)):.
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    As to the fourth complaint, the Court considers that, although Article 6 § 1 of the Convention covers the whole of criminal proceedings in issue, including the setting of any penalty (see, among other authorities, T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 108, 16 December 1999; and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IX; and more recently, Gurguchiani v. Spain, no. 16012/06, § 24, 15 December 2009, ECHR 2009-...), the actual penalty imposed by a competent court in criminal proceedings does not as such generally fall within the scope of the Convention (mutatis mutandis, Boons v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 40717/98, 27 June 2000).
  • EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

    VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    That is why the question whether a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, deriving from Article 6 § 1, can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see, among many other authorities, Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A, and Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288; and recently, Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 37, ECHR 2009-...).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    As to the fourth complaint, the Court considers that, although Article 6 § 1 of the Convention covers the whole of criminal proceedings in issue, including the setting of any penalty (see, among other authorities, T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 108, 16 December 1999; and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IX; and more recently, Gurguchiani v. Spain, no. 16012/06, § 24, 15 December 2009, ECHR 2009-...), the actual penalty imposed by a competent court in criminal proceedings does not as such generally fall within the scope of the Convention (mutatis mutandis, Boons v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 40717/98, 27 June 2000).
  • EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

    McFARLANE v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, as a recent authority, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 143, ECHR 2010-...).
  • EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 26780/95

    ESCOUBET v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11
    While noting that classification in domestic law is not decisive for the purposes of the Convention, having regard to the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to the term "criminal charge" (see, among many other authorities, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 81, Series A no. 22; and Escoubet v. Belgium [GC], no. 26780/95, § 33, ECHR 1999-VII), the Court does not consider it necessary on this occasion to determine whether Article 6 applies given the conclusions which it reaches.
  • EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34880/12

    RAMAER AND VAN WILLIGEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

    More generally, and in relation to all these complaints, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts, as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Het Financieele Dagblad B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 577/11, 28 June 2011; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C).
  • EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 24660/07

    LUKEZIC v. CROATIA

    Furthermore, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts, as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a court of "fourth instance" - for these courts (see, among many other authorities, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C; Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX; and Het Financieele Dagblad B.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 577/11, 28 June 2011).
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