Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,69318) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 24271/05
- EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
Wird zitiert von ... (11) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
The Court reiterates that its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature and that, in general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV, and Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 40997/98
TAHIR DURAN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
A similar position was adopted in cases concerning an infringement of the right to examine prosecution witnesses (see Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 75, 13 October 2005) and cases where the applicants had been convicted by courts that did not meet the Convention requirements of independence and impartiality (see, among other authorities, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003; Tahir Duran v. Turkey, no. 40997/98, § 23, 29 January 2004; and Öcalan, cited above, § 210). - EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
In other exceptional cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see, for example, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II).
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01
SOMOGYI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
Furthermore, in a number of cases concerning an infringement of the right to take part in the trial, the Court has held that the most appropriate form of redress for a breach of the fairness requirements of Article 6 would be for the applicant to be given a retrial (see, among other authorities, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 126, ECHR 2006-...). - EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 36822/02
BRACCI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
A similar position was adopted in cases concerning an infringement of the right to examine prosecution witnesses (see Bracci v. Italy, no. 36822/02, § 75, 13 October 2005) and cases where the applicants had been convicted by courts that did not meet the Convention requirements of independence and impartiality (see, among other authorities, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003; Tahir Duran v. Turkey, no. 40997/98, § 23, 29 January 2004; and Öcalan, cited above, § 210). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
The Court further recalls that, in certain cases, it found that the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see, for example, Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168). - EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86
KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
The Court further recalls that, in certain cases, it found that the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see, for example, Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168). - EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90
STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
This right is implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 (see Colozza, cited above, p. 14, § 27, and Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, pp. 10-11, § 26). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
This means that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence presented by the other party (see Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 27, §§ 66-67).
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
In other exceptional cases, where the very nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice between measures capable of remedying it, the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Aleksanyan, cited above, § 239, and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008). - EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008). - EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06
ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
In other exceptional cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Assanidze, cited above; see also Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 35 et seq., 17 January 2008).
- EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08
INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008). - EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06
MUMINOV v. RUSSIA
Exceptionally, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court will seek to indicate the type of measure that might be taken in order to put an end to a systemic situation it has found to exist (see Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008). - EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07
JANNATOV v. AZERBAIJAN
In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008). - EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07
LAYIJOV v. AZERBAIJAN
In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008; and Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009). - EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05
ABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
In other exceptional cases, where the very nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice between measures capable of remedying it, the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008, and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 239, 22 December 2008). - EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07
EFENDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008). - EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 24510/06
ABDULGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN
In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the appellate proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008). - EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07
ABAKAROVA v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 24271/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,60653) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Art. 5, Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 24271/05
- EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 22470/93
JACQ v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 24271/05
In this regard, the Court recalls that, where the facts consist of a series of legal proceedings, the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of the Contracting State in question has the effect of dividing the period into two, the earlier part falling outside the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis (see e.g. Klimentyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 46503/99, 17 September 2002; Jacq v. Finland, no. 22470/93, Commission decision of 18 October 1995, unreported; and Mitap and MüftüoÄ?lu v. Turkey, judgment of 25 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, § 26-27).