Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  X. v. SWITZERLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  X. c. SUISSE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)

• EKMR, 04.10.1990 - 13926/88

  N. c. DANEMARK

  But it is important to note in this regard that, even in such an event, it is on the basis of an appraisal of the whole trial that the question of whether the case was given a fair hearing should be decided (cf. for example No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 127).
• EKMR, 16.12.1987 - 10803/84

  F. c. AUTRICHE

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention ( cf. No. 8744/79, Majngarten v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Dec. 2.3.83, D.R. 32 p. 141; No. 9000/80, Porro v. Switzerland, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 127).
• EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 28475/95

  GRATZER v. AUSTRIA

  The Commission recalls that it can only assess the fairness of criminal proceedings when it is able to consider them in their entirety (No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 127; No. 16156/90, Dec. 7.6.90, unpublished).

 
• EKMR, 10.04.1997 - 27891/95

  SZILÁGYI v. HUNGARY

  The Commission notes that the applicant's appeal is still pending before the Supreme Court and recalls that, in principle, it can only assess the fairness of criminal proceedings when it is able to consider them in their entirety (cf., No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 127).
• EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28884/95

  GARFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Nor has he shown that it was necessary to hear Dr. R for the purposes of ascertaining the truth, or that the refusal to hear his him prejudiced his rights of defence (see No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 127).
• EKMR, 24.02.1997 - 27338/95

  F.S.J. AND 22 OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  The Commission notes that the proceedings against the applicants are still pending, and recalls that, in principle, it can only assess the fairness of criminal proceedings when it is able to consider them in their entirety (cf. No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 127).
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 29424/95

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The question of whether the case was given a fair hearing must always be decided on the basis of an appraisal of the trial as a whole, including the decision of the appellate court (cf. No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.83, D.R. 28 pp. 127, 134; Eur. Court HR, the Edwards v. the United Kingdom judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 34, para. 34).
• EKMR, 13.01.1992 - 15435/89

  BRITTING v. THE NETHERLANDS

  It is therefore not for the Commission to decide whether or not domestic courts have correctly assessed evidence unless there is an indication that the judge has drawn grossly unfair or arbitrary conclusions from the facts before him (cf., inter alia, Eur. Court H.R., Kostovski judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, p. 19 para. 39; No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28 pp. 127, 134).
• EKMR, 02.04.1990 - 13866/88

  BAYER v. AUSTRIA

  1 and 3 (d) do not give an accused an unlimited right to obtain the appearance of, and to examine, witnesses before court (see No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 127).
• EKMR, 08.09.1988 - 12262/86

  S. v. AUSTRIA

  1 and 3 (d) (Art. 6-1, 6-3-d), which are aimed at securing in criminal proceedings equality between the defence and the prosecution, do not give an accused an unlimited right to obtain the appearance of, and to examine witnesses before court (see No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 127).
• EKMR, 07.05.1987 - 12045/86

  BLASTLAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 26962/95

  SULKO v. THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC