Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VANHATALO v. FINLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22692/93

  The Commission notes further that it has consistently been held that the guarantees contained in paragraph 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-3) of the Convention are specific aspects of the concept of a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 (Art. 6-1) (cf., inter alia, Eur. Court H.R., Unterpertinger judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, para. 29).
• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22692/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention requires "equal treatment" in the proceedings (see Eur. Court H.R., Bönisch judgment of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, p. 14, paras. 28 et seq. and Eur. Court H.R., Borgers judgment of 23 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 31, paras. 24 et seq.), implying a "fair balance" between the parties (see Eur. Court H.R., Feldbrugge judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, p. 17, para. 44).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22692/93

  As a rule the respect of the rights of the defence requires that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him either when he was making his statements or at a later stage of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, the Asch judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 27).

 
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  BORGERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22692/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention requires "equal treatment" in the proceedings (see Eur. Court H.R., Bönisch judgment of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, p. 14, paras. 28 et seq. and Eur. Court H.R., Borgers judgment of 23 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 31, paras. 24 et seq.), implying a "fair balance" between the parties (see Eur. Court H.R., Feldbrugge judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, p. 17, para. 44).
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79

  FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22692/93

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention requires "equal treatment" in the proceedings (see Eur. Court H.R., Bönisch judgment of 6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, p. 14, paras. 28 et seq. and Eur. Court H.R., Borgers judgment of 23 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 31, paras. 24 et seq.), implying a "fair balance" between the parties (see Eur. Court H.R., Feldbrugge judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, p. 17, para. 44).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22692/93

  Its task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (cf. for example Eur. Court. H.R., Stanford judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, p. 10, para. 24).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22692/93

  This also follows from the fact that the guarantees of Article 6 continue to apply to the appeal proceedings where the opportunity to lodge an appeal in regard to the determination of a criminal charge is provided for under domestic law, since those proceedings form part of the whole proceedings which determine the criminal charge at issue (cf. for example Eur. Court. H.R., Monnell and Morris judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 21, para. 54).