Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28884/95 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1997,27010) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
SCHENK c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28884/95
More specifically, Article 6 (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d) leaves it to the national courts, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, and Article 6 (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d) offers no absolute right in that respect (see Eur. Court HR, Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, para. 33 with further references, see also Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, para. 46). - EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
VIDAL c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28884/95
More specifically, Article 6 (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d) leaves it to the national courts, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, and Article 6 (3) (d) (Art. 6-3-d) offers no absolute right in that respect (see Eur. Court HR, Vidal v. Belgium judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32, para. 33 with further references, see also Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, para. 46). - EKMR, 11.03.1982 - 9000/80
X. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 28884/95
Nor has he shown that it was necessary to hear Dr. R for the purposes of ascertaining the truth, or that the refusal to hear his him prejudiced his rights of defence (see No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 127).