Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PITKANEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to fairness Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to length Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 30508/96
• EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 30508/96

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 37442/97

  P.K. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 30508/96

  A change in the composition of the trial court after the hearing of an important witness should therefore normally lead to the rehearing of that witness (P.K. v. Finland, no. 37442/97, 9 July 2002; see also Eerola v. Finland, 42059/98, struck out 6 May 2003 following a friendly settlement).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  GUISSET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 30508/96

  Applicants will only cease to have standing as victims within the meaning of Article 34 if the national authorities have acknowledged the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and then afforded redress (see Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 42059/98

  EEROLA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 30508/96

  A change in the composition of the trial court after the hearing of an important witness should therefore normally lead to the rehearing of that witness (P.K. v. Finland, no. 37442/97, 9 July 2002; see also Eerola v. Finland, 42059/98, struck out 6 May 2003 following a friendly settlement).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 40324/98

  Rechtssache S. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Die Entscheidung, mit der dieser Teil der Individualbeschwerde für unzulässig erklärt wurde, ist endgültig und unanfechtbar (…siehe Helmers , a. a. O., S. 13, Rdnr. 25;… Sablo n, a. a. O., Rdnr. 100; Pitkänen ./. Finnland , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30508/96, Rdnr. 54-55, 9. März 2004).
• EuGH, 29.07.2019 - C-38/18

  Gambino und Hyka - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in …

  Daher muss eine Änderung in der Besetzung des Spruchkörpers nach der Vernehmung eines entscheidenden Zeugen grundsätzlich zu dessen erneuter Vernehmung führen (EGMR, 9. März 2004, Pitkänen/Finnland, CE:ECHR:2004:0309JUD003050896, Rn. 58, und EGMR, 18. März 2014, Beraru/Rumänien, CE:ECHR:2014:0318JUD004010704, Rn. 64).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 29889/04

  VANJAK v. CROATIA

  Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law (see, mutatis mutandis, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, § 39), the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see Pitkänen v. Finland, no. 30508/96, § 59, 9 March 2004).

• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 28183/03

  ANGHEL c. ROUMANIE

  En effet, les observations du tribunal en ce qui concerne le comportement et la crédibilité d'un témoin pouvaient avoir des conséquences pour l'issue de la procédure en cause (voir P.K. c. Finlande (déc.), no 37442/97, 9 juillet 2002 et, mutatis mutandis, Pitkänen c. Finlande no 30508/96, §§ 62-65, 9 mars 2004 ainsi que Milan c. Italie (déc.), no 32219/02, 4 décembre 2003).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  PERIC v. CROATIA

  Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law (see, mutatis mutandis, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 20, § 39), the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see Pitkänen v. Finland, no. 30508/96, § 59, 9 March 2004).
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 75101/01

  GRECU c. ROUMANIE

  En effet, les observations du tribunal en ce qui concerne le comportement et la crédibilité d'un témoin pouvaient avoir des conséquences pour l'issue de la procédure en cause (voir P.K. c. Finlande (déc.), no 37442/97, 9 juillet 2002 et, mutatis mutandis, Pitkänen c. Finlande no 30508/96, §§ 62-65, 9 mars 2004, ainsi que Milan c. Italie (déc.), no 32219/02, 4 décembre 2003).
• EGMR, 15.06.2023 - 44764/16

  ROCCELLA c. ITALIE

  Pour autant, lorsqu'elle examine une procédure relevant du volet civil de l'article 6 de la Convention, la Cour peut estimer nécessaire de s'inspirer de l'approche qu'elle a appliquée en matière pénale (Moreira Ferreira c. Portugal (no 2) [GC], no 19867/12, § 67, 11 juillet 2017 ; Peleki c. Grèce, no 69291/12, § 55, 5 mars 2020 ; Jokela c. Finlande, no 28856/95, § 68, ECHR 2002-IV ; et Pitkänen c. Finlande, no 30508/96, § 59, 9 mars 2004).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 44887/10

  [ENG]

  Thus, although these provisions have a certain relevance outside the strict confines of criminal law (see, mutatis mutandis, Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, § 39), the Contracting States have greater latitude when dealing with civil cases concerning civil rights and obligations than they have when dealing with criminal cases (see Pitkänen v. Finland, no. 30508/96, § 59, 9 March 2004).
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 77138/01

  MATTILA v. FINLAND

  In particular, while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and national courts (see, e.g. Pitkänen v. Finland, no. 30508/96, § 60, 9 March 2004).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 36288/97

  FRYCKMAN AND FRYCKMAN YHTIO OY v. FINLAND

  In particular, while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and national courts (see, e.g. Pitkänen v. Finland, no. 30508/96, § 60, 9 March 2004).