Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IVANOVSKI v. \

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  Moreover, the Court recalls that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory, but rights that are practical and effective; this is particularly so for the rights of the defence in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial, from which they derive (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 24).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46; García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  As stated in the Court's case-law, the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be treated as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 32).

 
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, §§ 45-46; García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  In answering that question, regard must be had, inter alia, to the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests are presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it and their importance for the appellant (see, inter alia, Ekbatani, cited above, p. 12, § 25; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, §§ 31-32; and Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, p. 43, §§ 58-59).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  In answering that question, regard must be had, inter alia, to the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests are presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it and their importance for the appellant (see, inter alia, Ekbatani, cited above, p. 12, § 25; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, p. 15, §§ 31-32; and Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, p. 43, §§ 58-59).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  In this context, importance is attached to appearances as well as to increased sensitivity to the fair administration of justice (see, mutatis mutandis, Bulut v. Austria, judgment of 22 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, § 47; Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 31, § 24).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  Such rights are implicit in the very notion of adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantee contained, inter alia, in Article 6 § 3(c) "to defend himself in person" (see Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, § 26).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 21261/02

  A State is required to ensure, also before courts of appeal, that persons subject to the law shall enjoy before these courts the fundamental guarantees contained in the Article (see, inter alia, Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 21, § 54; and Ekbatani v. Sweden, judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 134, p. 12, § 24).

• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 5398/03

  U. R. gegen Deutschland

  Das Absehen von einer Verhandlung in einer zweiten oder dritten Instanz kann aufgrund der Besonderheiten des betreffenden Verfahrens gerechtfertigt sein (siehe u. v. a. Rechtssachen Ekbatani ./. Schweden , Urteil vom 26. Mai 1988, Serie A Bd. 134, Rn 31;… Jan Åke Andersson , a. a. O., Rn 29;… Helmers , a. a. O., Rn 36;… Fejde und Hoppe , beide a. a. O.; Ivanovski ./. ehemalige jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 21261/02, 29. September 2005; und Kaipila ./. Finnland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 49453/99, 18. Oktober 2005).
• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 18670/03

  BERISHA AND HALJITI v.

  Furthermore, it could make a full assessment of the question of the applicants' guilt or innocence (see, mutatis mutandis, Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21261/02, 29 September 2005).
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 11320/05

  ISELSTEN v. SWEDEN

  The absence of a hearing before a second or third instance may be justified by the special features of the proceedings at issue (see, among many other authorities, Jan Åke Andersson, cited above, § 29; Helmers, cited above, § 36; Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.) no. 21261/02, 29 September 2005; and Kaipila v. Finland (dec.), no. 49453/99, 18 October 2005).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23152/05

  NASTESKA v.

  The Court observes that the principle of equality of arms implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21261/02, 29 September 2005).
• EGMR, 11.12.2006 - 39485/03

  W. S. gegen Deutschland

  Der Gerichtshof weist erneut darauf hin, dass das Absehen von einer Verhandlung in einer zweiten Instanz aufgrund der Besonderheiten des betreffenden Verfahrens gerechtfertigt sein kann (Urteil Ekbatani ./. Schweden vom 26. Mai 1988, Serie A Band 134, Nr. 31; Ivanovski ./. ehemalige jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 21261/02, 29. September 2005).