Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLDMANN AND SZENASZKY v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 17604/05
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05
• EGMR - 17604/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 23.11.2006 - 73053/01

  JUSSILA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  Furthermore, what was at stake for the applicants was imprisonment, and they were actually sentenced to a suspended prison term, which obviously carried a significant degree of stigma (see, a contrario, Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-XIII).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  The Court recalls that the absence of an oral hearing at second instance has led to violations in several criminal cases (see Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 25, Series A no. 134; Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 268-B; Botten v. Norway, 19 February 1996, § 39, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, §§ 55-56, 59-60, ECHR 2000-VIII; Tierce and Others v. San Marino, nos.
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  It is true that in the case of Fejde v. Sweden (29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, § 33), no violation of the applicant's defence rights was found - although no oral hearing had taken place before the appellate court - because of the minor character of the offence with which the applicant had been charged and the prohibition against increasing his sentence on appeal.

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 27156/02

  MORBY contre le LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  Against this background, the Court is satisfied that the applicants obtained adequate redress in respect of this period of five years and six months, itself involving three court instances (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17122/07

  MARCOS BARRIOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94, §§ 95-102, ECHR 2000-IX; Csikós v. Hungary, no. 37251/04, §§ 21-22, ECHR 2006-XIV (extracts); and Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, §§ 32-43, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 24954/94

  TIERCE ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94, §§ 95-102, ECHR 2000-IX; Csikós v. Hungary, no. 37251/04, §§ 21-22, ECHR 2006-XIV (extracts); and Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, §§ 32-43, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 37251/04

  CSIKOS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94, §§ 95-102, ECHR 2000-IX; Csikós v. Hungary, no. 37251/04, §§ 21-22, ECHR 2006-XIV (extracts); and Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, §§ 32-43, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 67660/01

  KOVACS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  Against this background, the Court is satisfied that the applicants obtained adequate redress in respect of this period of five years and six months, itself involving three court instances (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 10656/03

  DANYADI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  Against this background, the Court is satisfied that the applicants obtained adequate redress in respect of this period of five years and six months, itself involving three court instances (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 32783/03

  KALMAR v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05

  Against this background, the Court is satisfied that the applicants obtained adequate redress in respect of this period of five years and six months, itself involving three court instances (see Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI; Kalmár v. Hungary, no. 32783/03, § 27, 3 October 2006; Dányádi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 10656/03, 6 July 2006; Tamás Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28 September 2004; Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94

  LIE AND BERNTSEN v. NORWAY

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLDMANN AND SZENASZKY v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6 MRK
  Restored to the list (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 17604/05
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 17604/05
• EGMR - 17604/05