Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 66338/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,8981
EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 66338/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,8981)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.04.2015 - 66338/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,8981)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. April 2015 - 66338/09 (https://dejure.org/2015,8981)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,8981) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    YAREMENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

    Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
    Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    YAREMENKO c. UKRAINE (N° 2)

    Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
    Violation de l'article 6+6-3-c - Droit à un procès équitable (Article 6 - Procédure pénale Article 6-1 - Procès équitable) (Article 6-3-c - Se défendre avec l'assistance d'un défenseur Article 6 - Droit à un procès équitable) ...

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 ... (5)

  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

    MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (N° 2)

    Similarly, the Court has found that the upholding, after review proceedings, of a conviction which breached the right to a fair trial amounted to an error of assessment which perpetuated that breach (see Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, §§ 52-56 and 64-67, 30 April 2015).

    On the other hand, the case of Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015, §§ 52-56 and 64-67 - also cited in paragraph 63 of the judgment) does have some similarities with the present case, in that the applicant was a convicted person seeking the reopening of terminated criminal proceedings on the basis of a judgment of this Court finding a violation of Article 6 in relation to the original criminal trial.

  • EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 69291/12

    PELEKI c. GRÈCE

    Celle-ci n'a pas à tenir lieu de juge de quatrième instance et elle ne remet pas en cause sous l'angle de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention l'appréciation des tribunaux nationaux, sauf si leurs conclusions peuvent passer pour arbitraires ou manifestement déraisonnables (Bochan c. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no 22251/08, § 61, CEDH 2015 et les affaires qui y sont citées, ainsi que l'application de cette jurisprudence dans des arrêts plus récents: Pavlovic et autres c. Croatie, no 13274/11, § 49, 2 avril 2015, Yaremenko c. Ukraine (no 2), no 66338/09, §§ 64-67, 30 avril 2015, et Tsanova-Gecheva c. Bulgarie, no 43800/12, § 91, 15 septembre 2015).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2728/16

    ROSTOVTSEV v. UKRAINE

    It appears that in the period since the delivery of the Court's judgment in Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015), which clarified the consequences of a finding of a violation of the right to a fair trial in criminal cases, the Supreme Court quashed the applicants" convictions and remitted cases for retrial in all cases where requests for reopening complied with formal requirements of domestic law (see paragraph 16 (i) and (ii) above).

    In particular, on 6 July 2015 the Supreme Court quashed the applicant's conviction and remitted the case for retrial following the Chopenko v. Ukraine judgment (no. 17735/06, 15 January 2015), on 9 November 2015 following Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09, 30 April 2015), and Zhyzitskyy v. Ukraine (no. 57980/11, 19 February 2015) judgments, on 30 November 2015 following Ogorodnik v. Ukraine judgment (no. 29644/10, 5 February 2015), on 21 December 2015 following Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine judgment (no. 10705/12, 18 June 2015), and on 6 February 2017 following Zyakun v. Ukraine judgment (no. 34006/06, 25 February 2016).

  • EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 53561/09

    URAT v. TURKEY

    The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts" assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017 and the cases cited therein: Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015; Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; and AnÄ?elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013; Pavlovic and Others v. Croatia, no. 13274/11, § 49, 2 April 2015; Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 66338/09, §§ 64-67, 30 April 2015; and Tsanova-Gecheva v. Bulgaria, no. 43800/12, § 91, 15 September 2015).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 15685/11

    SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

    The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning the procedure for reopening criminal proceedings on the basis of judgments by the Court can be found in Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09, §§ 34-36, 30 April 2015).
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