Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DALLOS c. HONGRIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (six mois) Non-violation de l'art. 6 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DALLOS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (six months) No violation of Art. 6 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 10.09.1998 - 29082/95
• EGMR, 01.03.2001 - 29082/95

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2001 - 29082/95

  That information should be detailed (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2001 - 29082/95

  The Court recalls that the fairness of proceedings must be assessed with regard to the proceedings as a whole (see, for example, Miailhe v. France (no. 2), judgment of 26 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1338, § 43, and Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, pp.
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2001 - 29082/95

  Particulars of the offence play a crucial role in the criminal process, in that it is from the moment of their service that the suspect is formally put on written notice of the factual and legal basis of the charges against him (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 36-37, § 79).

• EGMR, 09.01.2024 - 77048/17

  CSÉFFAI v. HUNGARY

  Moreover, as noted above, she had knowledge of, and could comment on the grounds of appeal formulated by X. The applicant therefore had ample opportunity to convince the High Court of the merits of her arguments (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, § 50, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 33307/02

  GALICH v. RUSSIA

  The appeal court's judgment being final, there was no further ordinary instance at which the applicant could have advanced his defence against its findings (see, by contrast, Feldman v. France (dec.), no. 53426/99, 6 June 2002, and Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 16847/07

  DIALLO c. SUISSE

  En cas de saisine régulière par le requérant, ces deux juridictions pouvaient censurer le jugement du tribunal correctionnel si elles avaient estimé que cette requalification était arbitraire ou avait porté atteinte aux droits de la défense du requérant (voir, mutatis mutandis, l'arrêt Dallos c. Hongrie, no 29082/95, § 50, CEDH 2001II et Sipavicius c. Lituanie, no 49093/99, § 31, 21 février 2002).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 6427/05

  GASANOV v. RUSSIA

  The applicant therefore had ample opportunity to convince the Appeal Court of the merits of his arguments (see Dallos v. Hungary, no. 29082/95, § 50, ECHR 2001-II).