Rechtsprechung
EKMR, 02.07.1998 - 32054/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,31767) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SAGIR v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EKMR, 05.10.1987 - 11425/85
SCHLUMPF contre la France
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1998 - 32054/96
In this respect the Commission recalls that in order to have exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, an applicant must have expressly raised before the national authorities the complaint brought before the Commission (No. 11425/85, Dec. 5.10.87, D.R. 53, p. 76). - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1998 - 32054/96
As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-3) are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Commission will examine these submissions of the applicant from the angle of paragraph 1 taken together with the principles inherent in paragraph 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-3) (Eur. Court HR, Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1985, Series A no. 110, p. 14, para. 29; Daud v. Portugal judgment of 21 April 1998, para. 33, to be published in Reports 1998). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1998 - 32054/96
The Commission recalls that it would be overstraining the concept of the right of defence of those charged with a criminal offence if it were to be assumed that they could not be prosecuted, when in exercising that right, they intentionally arouse false suspicions of punishable behaviour concerning a witness or any other person involved in the criminal proceedings (Eur. Court HR, Brandstetter v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 23, para. 52). - EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90
GRADINGER c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EKMR, 02.07.1998 - 32054/96
That provision does not therefore apply before new proceedings have been opened (Eur. Court HR, Gradinger v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, p. 65, para. 53).
- EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04
TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
The situation at hand is therefore far from being the paradigmatic case of double jeopardy envisaged by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (compare with Sagir v. Austria, no. 32054/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1998, unreported, and with R.T. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 31982/96, 30 May 2000).