Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25494/94 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1995,26094) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PUTZ 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, 18.10.1995 - 25494/94
No. 21283/93, Dec. - EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25494/94
Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25494/94
It seems appropriate to look at these complaints 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 (Art. 6-3) represent aspects of the concept of a fair trial contained in paragraph 1 (Art. 6-1) (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, 18.10.1995 - 25494/94
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, 18.10.1995 - 25494/94
61; Klaas judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. - EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 25494/94
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).