Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 23505/94 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,28074) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
L.N. v. GERMANY
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 23505/94
In the present case, it seems appropriate to look at the applicant's complaints about the taking of evidence from the points of view of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-1+6-3) taken together, especially as the guarantees in paragraph 3 represent aspects of the concept of a fair trial contained in paragraph 1 (Eur. Court H.R., Unterpertinger judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, para. 29). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 23505/94
3 (d) (Art. 6-3-d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the "autonomous" sense given to that word in the Convention system; it does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (cf., Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89; Vidal judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33). - EKMR, 01.07.1985 - 10636/83
CUNNINGHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 23505/94
The Commission recalls that the requirements as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies have not been satisfied where failure to respect procedural rules constitutes the reason for the refusal of a remedy (No. 10636/83, Dec. 1.7.85, D.R. 43 p. 171; No. 10785/84, Dec. 18.7.86, D.R. 48 p. 102). - EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 23505/94
3 (d) (Art. 6-3-d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the "autonomous" sense given to that word in the Convention system; it does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf (cf., Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89; Vidal judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33). - EKMR, 18.07.1986 - 10785/84
W. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Auszug aus EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 23505/94
The Commission recalls that the requirements as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies have not been satisfied where failure to respect procedural rules constitutes the reason for the refusal of a remedy (No. 10636/83, Dec. 1.7.85, D.R. 43 p. 171; No. 10785/84, Dec. 18.7.86, D.R. 48 p. 102).