Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RABENSEIFNER v. AUSTRIA

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

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

• EKMR, 05.04.1994 - 21283/93

  TYLER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, 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. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77, p. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61; Klaas judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, 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. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77, p. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61; Klaas judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80

  UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  The Commission finds appropriate it to examine these submissions from the angle of paragraph 1 (Art. 6-1) taken together with the principles inherent in paragraph 3 of Article 6 (Art. 6-3), as the guarantees in paragraph 3 are specific aspects of the general concept of a fair trial set forth 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, 07.07.1989 - 10857/84

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  3 (a) (Art. 6-3-a) gives an accused person the right to be adequately informed of the cause and the nature of the accusation in order to enable him to prepare his defence accordingly (Eur. Court H.R., Brozicek judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 18-19, paras. 38-42; No. 10857/84, Dec. 15.7.86, D.R. 48, p. 106).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  BROZICEK v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  3 (a) (Art. 6-3-a) gives an accused person the right to be adequately informed of the cause and the nature of the accusation in order to enable him to prepare his defence accordingly (Eur. Court H.R., Brozicek judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 18-19, paras. 38-42; No. 10857/84, Dec. 15.7.86, D.R. 48, p. 106).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  In this respect, the Commission also recalls that all the evidence must normally be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Asch judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, paras. 26-27).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  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, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, 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. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77, p. 81; Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61; Klaas judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, para. 29).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 24154/94

  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).