Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAROLYI v. AUSTRIA

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

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

• EKMR, 05.04.1994 - 21283/93

  TYLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 24251/94

  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-A pp. 81, 88 and 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).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 24251/94

  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-A pp. 81, 88 and 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).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 16.01.1996 - 24251/94

  The Commission considers it appropriate to examine his complaints about the taking and assessment of evidence from the point 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, 16.01.1996 - 24251/94

  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, 16.01.1996 - 24251/94

  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-A pp. 81, 88 and 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, 16.01.1996 - 24251/94

  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).