Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAHARIEV v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZAHARIEV v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  The Court therefore considers that, by failing to address the applicant's argument that his immunity could not be terminated because of him having engaged in professional and commercial activities for personal profit, the domestic courts fell short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 27122/14

  SPASOV c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  Rn. 45 The Court will proceed to assess whether, in deciding the applicant's case and applying the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention, the domestic courts complied with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and, in particular, whether their reasoning on this point was in conformity with the Convention standards (compare Spasov v. Romania, no. 27122/14, § 91, 6 December 2022).
• EGMR, 26.09.2023 - 15669/20

  YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  A domestic judicial decision cannot be qualified as arbitrary to the point of prejudicing the fairness of proceedings unless no reasons are provided for it or if the reasons given are based on a manifest factual or legal error committed by the domestic court, resulting in a "denial of justice" (ibid., § 85, and Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, § 304, 26 September 2023).

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  It is not for the Court to deal with alleged errors of law or fact committed by the national courts unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, for instance where, in exceptional cases, such errors may be said to constitute "unfairness" incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 34356/06

  Immunität gilt auch bei Folter

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  The judgment is summarised in Jones and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06, § 83, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

  MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  This also applies where domestic law refers to rules of general international law or international agreements (see Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 108, ECHR 2006-XIV; and Mont Blanc Trading Ltd and Antares Titanium Trading Ltd v. Ukraine, no. 11161/08, § 93, 14 January 2021).
• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 59/17

  AKAY v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  The Court also emphasises that its only task is to apply the Convention and that therefore, in the present case, it has no competence to decide on the applicant's immunity as such (see Aydın Sefa Akay v. Türkiye, no. 59/17, § 119, 23 April 2024).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 11643/20

  ISPIRYAN v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  The Court concludes that these complaints do not fall within the scope of the present application and therefore cannot be examined (see Ispiryan v. Lithuania, no. 11643/20, §§ 56-57, 27 June 2023, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 77796/17

  TALESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 5 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  The request for extraordinary review was therefore an effective remedy for the purposes of the applicant's complaints (ibid., and, mutatis mutandis, Taleski v. North Macedonia (dec.), no. 77796/17 and five other applications, § 102, 24 January 2023).
• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 78108/14

  PAIXÃO MOREIRA SÁ FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 26760/22

  It is only by giving a reasoned decision that there can be public scrutiny of the administration of justice (see Paixão Moreira Sá Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 78108/14, § 71, 25 February 2020).
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 11161/08

  MONT BLANC TRADING LTD AND ANTARES TITANIUM TRADING LTD v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 49619/06

  MAMUDOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.06.2026 - 34261/23

  TALESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

  Accordingly, it considers it reasonable that the second and third applicants awaited the Supreme Court's decision in their criminal case, given that a request for extraordinary review constituted an effective remedy when admissible (see, mutatis mutandis, Mamudovski, cited above, and Zahariev v. North Macedonia, no. 26760/22, § 38, 5 November 2024).
• EGMR, 16.07.2026 - 74259/17

  POUROS c. GRÈCE

  In examining the fairness of criminal proceedings, the Court has held, in particular, that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point made by the accused, the domestic courts fall short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 337-41, 26 September 2023; Zahariev v. North Macedonia, no. 26760/22, §§ 49-50, 5 November 2024; and Cupiał v. Poland, no. 67414/11, § 57, 9 March 2023).
• EGMR - 28600/25 (anhängig)

  DUBROVAČKA BISKUPIJA v. CROATIA and 1 other application

  Did the applicant diocese have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic authorities' and courts' decisions sufficiently reasoned and not arbitrary regarding the question of the law applicable to restitution claims lodged by legal persons of the Catholic Church (see Zahariev v. North Macedonia, no. 26760/22, §§ 42-43 and 49-50, 5 November 2024; Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 100-01, 7 February 2023; and Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013)?.
• EGMR - 3139/25 (anhängig)

  ZOVKO v. CROATIA

  In particular, were the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court sufficiently reasoned and not arbitrary (see Zahariev v. North Macedonia, no. 26760/22, §§ 42-43 and 49-50, 5 November 2024; Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 100-01, 7 February 2023; and Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013)?.