Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2007,61749
EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,61749)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.04.2007 - 17995/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,61749)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. April 2007 - 17995/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,61749)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,61749) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    STOIMENOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (applicant) Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (members of the applicant's family) Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings ...

 
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 ... (19)

  • EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

    Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

    Both Mr Yeloyan and Mr Kupriyanov were hired as experts by the prosecution at the investigation stage and conducted their expert examination at the premises of the GPO, without any involvement of the defence (compare with Zarb v. Malta, (dec.), 16631/04, 27 September 2005, with further references, see also Stoimenov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 17995/02, §§ 39 and 40, 5 April 2007, with further references).
  • EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 926/08

    KARELIN v. RUSSIA

    In the context of the principle of equality of arms, in the case of Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 17995/02, §§ 40-42, 5 April 2007) the Court also referred to "appearances" when concluding that an opinion submitted by the Forensic Science Bureau, a State agency, was akin to incriminating evidence used by the prosecution and that the refusal of an alternative expert examination and the applicant's inability to challenge the Bureau's report in the circumstances of that case had resulted in a violation of the equality of arms (see also Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 65-67, 11 December 2008).
  • EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 58428/10

    MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA

    In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 34153/12

    SUKLEV AND MIRCEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

    The purpose of the six-month rule is to promote legal certainty, ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are examined within a reasonable time, and protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being in a situation of uncertainty for a long period of time (see Sabri Günes v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 40-42, 29 June 2012; see also Shirnova v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 31876/11, 12 November 2011).

    16.

  • EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 30465/06

    C.B. v. AUSTRIA

    In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 § 1 (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, §§ 38 et seq., 5 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07

    POLETAN AND AZIROVIK v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

    They reiterated that the experts had not been independent (given that the Bureau had operated within the Central Police Forces Unit) and in this respect they referred to the Court's judgment in the Stoimenov case (see Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, 5 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

    TRAJCE STOJANOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

    Having regard to the fee note submitted by the applicant, the Court finds that only EUR 190 related to lawyers' fees which concerned the 2003 review and were expended with a view to seeking prevention before the national courts of the violations found by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, § 56, 5 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 4922/04

    LAZOROSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

    Having regard to the fee note submitted by the applicant, the Court finds that only EUR 180 related to lawyer's fees expended with a view to preventing before the national courts of the violations found by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, § 56, 5 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4570/07

    TRAMPEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

    Having regard to the fee note submitted by the applicant, the Court finds that only EUR 340 related to lawyer's fees which were expended with a view to seeking prevention before the national courts of the violation found by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, § 56, 5 April 2007, and Trajce Stojanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 1431/03, § 46, 22 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 5447/03

    KOROLEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    In the context of the principle of equality of arms, in the case of Stoimenov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 17995/02, §§ 40-42, 5 April 2007) the Court also referred to "appearances" when concluding that an opinion submitted by the Forensic Science Bureau, a State agency, was akin to incriminating evidence used by the prosecution and that the refusal of an alternative expert examination and the applicant's inability to challenge the Bureau's report in the circumstances of that case had resulted in a violation of the equality of arms (see also Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 65-67, 11 December 2008).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 14260/03

    GJOZEV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 27865/02

    BOCVARSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 10718/05

    DUSKO IVANOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 25248/05

    NAUMOSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04

    GALUASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 52874/10

    ZIBERI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 06.05.2010 - 41916/04

    BORIS STOJANOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 75330/01

    SHARKUNOV AND MEZENTSEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 37812/04

    JOSIFOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht