Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOLS v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (Eur. Court H.R., Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, para. 46, and Padovani judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 25).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  1 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-3) taken together, since the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-3) represent constituent elements of the general concept of a fair hearing set forth in paragraph 1 (Art. 6-1) of this provision (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Lala judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A, p. 12, para. 26).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (Eur. Court H.R., Hauschildt judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 21, para. 46, and Padovani judgment of 26 February 1993, Series A no. 257-B, p. 20, para. 25).

 
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (cf. No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5, No. 10563/83, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 44, p. 113; and Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).
• EGMR, 26.05.1988 - 10563/83

  EKBATANI v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (cf. No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5, No. 10563/83, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 44, p. 113; and Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).
• EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 8231/78

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  It is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to hear a witness (cf. No. 8231/78, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 5, No. 10563/83, Dec. 5.7.85, D.R. 44, p. 113; and Eur. Court H.R., Bricmont judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89).
• EKMR, 10.03.1989 - 12013/86

  ALBERTI contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  It is not competent to deal with a complaint alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic authorities, 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. 12013/86, Dec. 10.3.89, D.R. 59, p. 100).
• EKMR, 10.07.1985 - 11219/84

  KURUP v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  In exceptional circumstances there may be reasons for hearing a witness in the absence of the accused on condition that his lawyer is present (cf. No. 11219/84, Dec. 10.7.85, D.R. 42, p. 287), or to allow a witness not to answer certain questions.
• EKMR, 04.07.1979 - 8414/78

  X. v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 19.10.1995 - 25206/94

  It is true that the applicant withdrew his earlier confessions before the trial courts, but, where a court is confronted with a contradiction between an earlier statement and subsequent evidence at the trial, it is the task of this court to consider the credibility of the various declarations concerned (cf. No. 8414/78, Dec. 4.7.79, D.R. 17, p. 231).