Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 32779/96 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1997,28132) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A.L.J.G., L.C.M.G. AND H.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86
BORGERS v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 32779/96
Insofar as the applicants complain that the Supreme Court did not take notice of their additional replies to the conclusions of the Procurator General, the Commission recalls that, given the rights of the defence and respect for the principle of equality of arms, appellants in cassation should be given the possibility to respond to conclusions submitted to a cassation court by the Public Prosecution Department (cf. Eur. Court HR, Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 32779/96
3 (d) (Art. 6-3-d) of the Convention 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 HR, Engel v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 38, para. 91; Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89; and Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, para. 33). - EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91
HIRO BALANI v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 32779/96
1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (cf. Eur. Court HR, Ruiz Torija v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-A, p. 12, para. 29; and Hiro Balani v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, p. 29, para. 27). - EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 32779/96
3 (d) (Art. 6-3-d) of the Convention 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 HR, Engel v. the Netherlands judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 38, para. 91; Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89; and Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, para. 33).