Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1989,14515
EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82 (https://dejure.org/1989,14515)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.12.1989 - 9783/82 (https://dejure.org/1989,14515)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Dezember 1989 - 9783/82 (https://dejure.org/1989,14515)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1989,14515) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KAMASINSKI c. AUTRICHE

    Art. 6, Art. ... 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 14+6, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 17, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Violation de l'Art. 6-1 Non-violation des art. 14+6-1 et 14+6-3-c Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

    Art. 6, Art. ... 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 14+6, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 17, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 14+6-1 and 14+6-3-c Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Papierfundstellen

  • ÖJZ 1990, 412
 
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 ... (290)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 28.11.1978 - 6210/73

    Luedicke, Belkacem und Koç ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    Paragraph 3 (e) (art. 6-3-e) signifies that a person "charged with a criminal offence" who cannot understand or speak the language used in court has the right to the free assistance of an interpreter for the translation or interpretation of all those documents or statements in the proceedings instituted against him which it is necessary for him to understand or to have rendered into the court's language in order to have the benefit of a fair trial (see the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A no. 29, p. 20, § 48).

    The Court judges it superfluous to examine the contested facts also under Article 14 (art. 14) since in the present context the rule of non-discrimination laid down in that provision is already embodied in Article 6 § 3 (e) (art. 6-3-e) (see the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment previously cited, Series A no. 29, p. 21, § 53).

    Whilst the attitude of the accused towards the appointment of an interpreter might "in some borderline cases" be influenced by the fear of financial consequences (see the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment previously cited, Series A no. 29, p. 18, § 42), the temporary concern occasioned to Mr Kamasinski because of the initial error of the Austrian authorities was not such as to have had any repercussions on the exercise of his right to a fair trial as safeguarded by Article 6 (art. 6).

  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

    DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    Whilst Article 6 (art. 6) is applicable to nullity proceedings of the kind brought by Mr Kamasinski (see the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, pp. 14-15, § 25), the operation of section 281 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in his case did not, in the Court's view, entail any discrimination in the enjoyment of the fundamental rights protected by Article 6 (art. 6).

    The right to a fair trial extends to appeal proceedings such as those brought by Mr Kamasinski (see the Delcourt judgment previously cited, Series A no. 11, pp. 14-15, § 25), with the consequence that the supplementary protection afforded by Article 14 (art. 14) also applies (see, for example, the Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 15-16, § 32).

  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    If they are notified of the situation, the authorities must either replace him or cause him to fulfil his obligations." (Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33).

    In view of the need for the right guaranteed by paragraph 3 (e) (art. 6-3-e) to be practical and effective, the obligation of the competent authorities is not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances, may also extend to a degree of subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation provided (see, mutatis mutandis, the Artico judgment previously cited, Series A no. 37, pp. 16 and 18, §§ 33 and 36 - quoted above at paragraph 65).

     
  • EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

    ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    The requirements of Article 13 (art. 13) are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6 (art. 6) (see, inter alia, the Allan Jacobsson judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 21, § 78).
  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    The right to a fair trial extends to appeal proceedings such as those brought by Mr Kamasinski (see the Delcourt judgment previously cited, Series A no. 11, pp. 14-15, § 25), with the consequence that the supplementary protection afforded by Article 14 (art. 14) also applies (see, for example, the Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 15-16, § 32).
  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

    MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    The special features of the appeal procedure before the Supreme Court and the particular circumstances of Mr Kamasinski's appeal must be taken into account in determining whether Mr Kamasinski was the victim of discrimination as alleged (see, mutatis mutandis, the Monnell and Morris judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, p. 22, § 56).
  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

    OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    This being so, quite apart from doubts as to the necessity and reasonableness of a number of the heads of claim, the Court considers that only a small proportion of the sums sought should be reimbursed (see, mutatis mutandis, the Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 43, § 105 in fine).
  • EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79

    FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    Nevertheless, in conducting the factual inquiry the Supreme Court did not observe the principle that contending parties should be heard (le principe du contradictoire), this being one of the principal guarantees of a judicial procedure (see, mutatis mutandis, the Feldbrugge judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A no. 99, pp. 17-18, § 44).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

    DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    The Court therefore recognises the lawfulness of the arrangement entered into between Mr Kamasinski and his counsel, Mr D'Amato (contrast with the Dudgeon judgment of 24 February 1983, Series A no. 59, p. 10, § 22).
  • EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

    RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
    Consequently, this is an area where the national authorities enjoy a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law (see the Rasmussen judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 15, § 40, and the precedents cited there).
  • EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

    KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

    MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

    The applicant NGO also relied on the Court's case-law in Artico v. Italy (13 May 1980, Series A no. 37), Kamasinski v. Austria, (19 December 1989, Series A no. 168) and Czekalla v. Portugal (no. 38830/97, ECHR 2002-VIII), where it was found that in certain circumstances the State could be held responsible for certain shortcomings in the ex officio defence counsel system.
  • EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 46221/99

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Freiheit der Person; rechtmäßige …

    116.  On this point, the Government also argued that, contrary to what the Chamber had found, the Court's case-law in the cases of Kremzow v. Austria (judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, p. 42, § 52) and Kamasinski v. Austria (judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, p. 39, § 88) was applicable in the instant case.
  • EuGH, 15.10.2015 - C-216/14

    Covaci - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in …

    39      Wie sich auch aus der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte ergibt, braucht nämlich, um die Anforderungen an ein faires Verfahren zu erfüllen, lediglich sichergestellt zu werden, dass der Beschuldigte verstehen kann, was ihm vorgeworfen wird, und sich verteidigen kann; eine schriftliche Übersetzung jedes schriftlichen Beweises oder jedes Aktenstücks wird nicht verlangt (EGMR, Kamasinski/Österreich, 19. Dezember 1989, Serie A, Nr. 168, § 74).
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