Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUSA v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 28453/95

  1 (Art. 6-1) does not guarantee any right to free legal aid as such." (Eur. Court HR, Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 14, para. 26).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 28453/95

  The Convention leaves to each Contracting State, in the first place, the task of securing the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms it enshrines (cf., Eur. Court HR, Belgian Linguistic case, judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, p. 35, in fine, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 22, para. 48).
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 28453/95

  The Commission recalls that the word "victim", in the context of Article 25 (Art. 25), denotes the person directly affected by the act or omission which is in issue, the existence of a violation being conceivable even in the absence of prejudice (cf., inter alia, Eur. Court HR, Adolf v. Austria judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, p. 17, para. 37).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 28453/95

  Accordingly, it has to be ascertained whether the Hungarian authorities held that the applicant had been a victim of the erroneous police action in question and, if so, whether they granted redress (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, pp. 30-31, paras. 66-67).
• EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88

  T. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 28453/95

  Although the applicant's case has so far been dealt with by only one court instance, the total length of the proceedings does not exceed an acceptable limit in the circumstances of the present case (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Cesarini v. Italy judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245, p. 26, para. 20).
• EKMR, 06.07.1977 - 7823/77

  48 TZIGANES KALDERAS c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE ET PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 28453/95

  The question could be raised, therefore, whether the denial of free legal aid did prevent the applicant from the enjoyment of this right (cf., Nos. 7823/77 - 7824/77, Dec. 6.7.77, D.R. 11, p. 221).
• EKMR, 11.05.1983 - 9353/81

  A.W. WEBB c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 28453/95

  It follows that the Commission's examination of the fairness of the proceedings must be based upon their entirety and not on the isolated question of whether the applicant was granted legal aid (cf., e.g., No. 9353/81, Dec. 11.5.83, D.R. 33, p. 141).

• EGMR, 30.06.2008 - 22978/05

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Fortwirkung von Verstößen gegen die …

  In Fällen, in denen die Konventionsverletzung einen erheblichen materiellen oder immateriellen Schaden für den Beschwerdeführer zur Folge hatte, hat es der Gerichtshof ferner für den Wegfall seiner Opfereigenschaft als entscheidend angesehen, ob er eine angemessene Geldentschädigung erhalten hat (vgl. Busa ./. Ungarn , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28453/95, Entscheidung der Kommission vom 15. Januar 1997, betreffend eine Rüge nach Artikel 3 gegen exzessive Gewaltanwendung durch die Polizei; Murillo Saldias u.a. ./. Spanien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 76973/01, 28. November 2006, betreffend einen Verstoß gegen die positiven Verpflichtungen der Verwaltungsbehörden aus Artikel 2;… und Dalban , a.a.O., § 44, betreffend eine gegen Artikel 10 verstoßende Verurteilung).
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 12097/05

  PETROV v. RUSSIA

  In cases in which a violation of the Convention has caused significant pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage to the applicant, the Court has further found it decisive for an applicant's loss of victim status that the latter has received a payment of compensation which is reasonable as to quantum (compare Busa v. Hungary, no. 28453/95, Commission decision of 15 January 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR), in respect of a complaint under Article 3 against excessive use of force by the police; Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 76973/01, 28 November 2006, concerning a breach of the administrative authorities" positive obligations under Article 2, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI, in respect of a conviction in breach of Article 10).