Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1996,19314
EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96 (https://dejure.org/1996,19314)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 25.11.1996 - 30047/96 (https://dejure.org/1996,19314)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 25. November 1996 - 30047/96 (https://dejure.org/1996,19314)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1996,19314) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Hinweis zu den Links:
Zu grauen Einträgen liegen derzeit keine weiteren Informationen vor. Sie können diese Links aber nutzen, um die Einträge beispielsweise in Ihre Merkliste aufzunehmen.

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    However, the scope of review by the Convention organs is limited and it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (cf. Eur. Court HR, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 18, para. 39, p. 20, paras. 45-46; No. 9997/82, Dec. 7.12.82, D.R. 31, p. 245).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

    UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    The Commission finds it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaints about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings 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 HR, Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, para. 29; Artner v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, para. 19).
  • EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

    Inze ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    There can be no room for application of Article 14 (Art. 14) unless the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more of such provisions (Eur. Court HR, Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, para. 36).
     
  • EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

    ASCH v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    3 (d) (Art. 6-3-d), be regarded as a witness - a term to be given an autonomous interpretation (cf. Eur. Court HR, Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 25) - because his statements, as taken down by the police and a judge in 1933 and read out at the trial against the applicant, were used in evidence by the Regional Court.
  • EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

    KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    The Commission recalls that, although this is not expressly mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 6 (Art. 6-1), the object and purpose of this provision taken as a whole show that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to take part in the hearing (cf. Eur. Court HR, Colozza v. Italy judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, para. 27; Brozicek v. Italy judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, p. 19, para. 45; F.C.B. v. Italy judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, para. 33; T. v. Italy judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, para. 26; see further Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, pp 15 et seq., paras 31-39; Kremzow v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, pp. 43 et seq., paras. 57-69).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

    HELMERS c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    The Commission recalls that, although this is not expressly mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 6 (Art. 6-1), the object and purpose of this provision taken as a whole show that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to take part in the hearing (cf. Eur. Court HR, Colozza v. Italy judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, para. 27; Brozicek v. Italy judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, p. 19, para. 45; F.C.B. v. Italy judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, para. 33; T. v. Italy judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, para. 26; see further Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, pp 15 et seq., paras 31-39; Kremzow v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, pp. 43 et seq., paras. 57-69).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

    ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    The Commission finds it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaints about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings 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 HR, Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14, para. 29; Artner v. Austria judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, p. 10, para. 19).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

    BROZICEK v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    The Commission recalls that, although this is not expressly mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 6 (Art. 6-1), the object and purpose of this provision taken as a whole show that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to take part in the hearing (cf. Eur. Court HR, Colozza v. Italy judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, para. 27; Brozicek v. Italy judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, p. 19, para. 45; F.C.B. v. Italy judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, para. 33; T. v. Italy judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 245-C, p. 41, para. 26; see further Helmers v. Sweden judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-A, pp 15 et seq., paras 31-39; Kremzow v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, pp. 43 et seq., paras. 57-69).
  • EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

    VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    The task under the Convention is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety were fair (cf. Eur. Court HR., Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, para. 89; Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, para. 33).
  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

    MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EKMR, 25.11.1996 - 30047/96
    Account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings conducted in the domestic legal system and the role of the particular appellate court therein (cf., mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR., Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, para. 56; Granger v. the United Kingdom of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 174, p. 17, para. 44; Jan-Åke Andersson v. Sweden of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-B, pp. 43-44, para. 22; Tripodi v. Italy judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no 281-B, p. 45 para. 27; Kremzow judgment, loc. cit., para. 58).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

    F.C.B. c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 12.10.1992 - 14104/88

    T. c. ITALIE

  • EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

    BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht