Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DIMOVIC v. SERBIA

  Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DIMOVIC v. SERBIA

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11
• EGMR, 21.02.2018 - 24463/11

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.09.2012 - 926/05

  TAXQUET CONTRE LA BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11

  In addition, it is the Court's primary concern under Article 6 § 1 to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 84, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010; Khvichia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009); Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006 and Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004), or if they manifestly lacked any real purpose (see Jovanovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 40348/08, 7 March 2014), or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák, cited above) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010; Khvichia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009); Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006 and Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004), or if they manifestly lacked any real purpose (see Jovanovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 40348/08, 7 March 2014), or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák, cited above) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 44328/05

  PIRTSKHALAISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010; Khvichia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009); Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006 and Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004), or if they manifestly lacked any real purpose (see Jovanovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 40348/08, 7 March 2014), or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák, cited above) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 07.03.2014 - 40348/08

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010; Khvichia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009); Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006 and Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004), or if they manifestly lacked any real purpose (see Jovanovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 40348/08, 7 March 2014), or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák, cited above) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 26446/06

  KHVICHIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010; Khvichia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009); Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006 and Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004), or if they manifestly lacked any real purpose (see Jovanovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 40348/08, 7 March 2014), or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák, cited above) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010; Khvichia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 26446/06, 23 June 2009); Keretchashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006 and Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004), or if they manifestly lacked any real purpose (see Jovanovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 40348/08, 7 March 2014), or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák, cited above) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10

  SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 24463/11

  According to the principles developed in the Court's case-law, it is necessary to examine in three steps the compatibility with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention of proceedings in which statements made by a witness who had not been present and questioned at the trial were used as evidence (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 107, ECHR 2015 and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 119, ECHR 2011; see also the summary of the law in Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, §§ 58 and 59, 31 March 2016, not yet final).