Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZWETTLER v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 24406/94

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf. No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77 p. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61; Klaas judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29).

  However, the Convention organs are not called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (see above and Eur. Court H.R., Van De Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61).

• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 24406/94

  The Commission finds appropriate it to examine these submissions from the angle of paragraph 1 taken together with the principles inherent in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6), as the guarantees in paragraphs 2 and 3 are specific aspects of the general concept of a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 (cf. mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Unterpertinger judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, para. 29).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 24406/94

  In this respect, the Commission also recalls that all the evidence must normally be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Asch judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, paras. 26-27).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 24406/94

  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).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 24406/94

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (cf. No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77 p. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61; Klaas judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 24406/94

  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).