Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANDOR LAJOS KISS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 26958/05

  Referring in particular to the Constantinescu v. Romania judgment (no. 28871/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-VIII), the Government emphasised that the first issue to be addressed was whether the Regional Court was to try questions of law or fact, that is whether it reviewed the case against the applicant in its entirety.
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 37251/04

  CSIKOS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 26958/05

  The absence of an oral hearing at second instance has led to violations in several criminal cases (see Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 25, Series A no. 134; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, §§ 31-32; Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, §§ 58-59; Botten v. Norway, 19 February 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; Belziuk v. Poland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, §§ 38 to 40; Constantinescu, cited above; Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, no. 44671/98, § 30, 15 July 2003; and Csikós v. Hungary, no. 37251/04, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 26958/05

  The absence of an oral hearing at second instance has led to violations in several criminal cases (see Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 25, Series A no. 134; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, §§ 31-32; Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, §§ 58-59; Botten v. Norway, 19 February 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; Belziuk v. Poland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, §§ 38 to 40; Constantinescu, cited above; Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, no. 44671/98, § 30, 15 July 2003; and Csikós v. Hungary, no. 37251/04, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 26958/05

  It is true that in the case of Fejde v. Sweden (judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, § 33), no violation of the applicant's defence rights was found, although no oral hearing had taken place before the appellate court.
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 26958/05

  The absence of an oral hearing at second instance has led to violations in several criminal cases (see Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 25, Series A no. 134; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, §§ 31-32; Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, §§ 58-59; Botten v. Norway, 19 February 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; Belziuk v. Poland, judgment of 25 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, §§ 38 to 40; Constantinescu, cited above; Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, no. 44671/98, § 30, 15 July 2003; and Csikós v. Hungary, no. 37251/04, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

  A ET B c. NORVÈGE

  In other instances, the Court has stated that criminal offences punishable by imprisonment carried a significant degree of stigma, when the convicted person had been sentenced to a seven-year term (Popa and Tanasescu v. Romania, no. 19946/04, § 46, 10 April 2012), a four-year term (Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 24, 29 September 2009), or a suspended prison term (Goldmann and Szénászky v. Hungary, no. 17604/05, § 20, 30 November 2010), or even only a fine (Taláber v. Hungary, no. 37376/05, § 27, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 36470/08

  CIPLEU v. ROMANIA

  However, where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by an accused who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see, among many others, Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 32, Series A no. 134; Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-VIII; Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 22, 29 September 2009; Sinichkin v. Russia, no. 20508/03, § 32, 8 April 2010; Lacadena Calero v. Spain, no. 23002/07, §§ 36 and 38, 22 November 2011; and Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 32, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 17735/06

  CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE

  Any derogation from this principle should be exceptional and subjected to restrictive interpretation (see, for example, Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 22, 29 September 2009, and Popa and Tanasescu v. Romania, no. 19946/04, § 46, 10 April 2012).