Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KEMPERS v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93
• EKMR, 27.02.1997 - 21842/93

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93

  The Commission recalls that as a general rule it is for the national courts, and in particular the court of first instance, to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which the accused seeks to adduce (Eur. Court H.R., Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, para. 68).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93

  The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (Eur. Court H.R., Brandstetter judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 27, paras. 66-67).
• EKMR, 04.05.1979 - 8417/78

  X. v. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93

  3 (Art. 6-3) of the Convention does not give the accused an unlimited right to have witnesses called (No. 8417/78, Dec. 4.5.79, D.R. 15 p. 200).

 
• EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93

  Domestic courts may thus exercise some discretion, provided that the Convention and particularly the right to a fair hearing are respected, in deciding whether the hearing of a defence witness is likely to help to establish the truth (No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 5).
• EKMR, 12.10.1988 - 12164/86

  AGNEESSENS contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93

  The Commission recalls that domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention have been exhausted if, before the highest domestic body, the applicant has submitted at least in substance the complaint he is raising before the Commission, even without particular reference to the Convention (No. 7299/75 and 7496/76, Dec. 4.12.79, D.R. 18 p. 5; No. 12164/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 58 p. 63).
• EGMR, 24.10.1983 - 7299/75

  ALBERT ET LE COMPTE c. BELGIQUE (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93

  The Commission recalls that domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention have been exhausted if, before the highest domestic body, the applicant has submitted at least in substance the complaint he is raising before the Commission, even without particular reference to the Convention (No. 7299/75 and 7496/76, Dec. 4.12.79, D.R. 18 p. 5; No. 12164/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 58 p. 63).
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 21842/93

  In particular a court is justified in refusing to summon witnesses when it considers that their statements could not be of any relevance to the case (No. 10486/83, Dec. 9.10.86, D.R. 49 p. 86 at p. 102).