Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (63)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.09.2003 - 30900/02

  As the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, the Court will examine the complaints under both provisions taken together (see Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, § 29).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BVerfG, 15.12.2015 - 2 BvR 2735/14

  Gewährleistung einzelfallbezogenen Grundrechtsschutzes im Rahmen der …

  Der Verteidigung würde die Möglichkeit genommen, in einem Wiederaufnahmeverfahren die Zulassung neuer Beweise zu beantragen (vgl. EGMR, Jones v. Vereinigtes Königreich, Entscheidung vom 9. September 2003, Nr. 30900/02; EGMR , Sejdovic v. Italien, Urteil vom 1. März 2006, Nr. 56581/00, § 85).

  Das Verfahren kann dann in seiner Gesamtheit als fair angesehen werden (vgl. EGMR, Jones v. Vereinigtes Königreich, Entscheidung vom 9. September 2003, Nr. 30900/02; EGMR , Sejdovic v. Italien, Urteil vom 1. März 2006, Nr. 56581/00, § 85).

  Der Verzicht muss allerdings unmissverständlich ausgedrückt werden und gewissen Mindestanforderungen genügen (vgl. EGMR, Jones v. Vereinigtes Königreich, Entscheidung vom 9. September 2003, Nr. 30900/02).

• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
  Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, 27 March 2007, § 59, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen Verteidigerbeistand bei der ersten Vernehmung …

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).

• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

  Before an accused can be said to have implicitly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, 27 March 2007, § 59, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 4268/04

  PANOVITS c. CHYPRE

  En outre, avant qu'un accusé puisse être réputé avoir implicitement, par son comportement, renoncé à un droit important découlant de l'article 6, il doit être établi qu'il pouvait raisonnablement prévoir les conséquences de ses actes (Talat Tunç c. Turquie, no 32432/96, § 59, 27 mars 2007, et Jones c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 30900/02, 9 décembre 2003).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05

  [ENG]

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  VASENIN v. RUSSIA

  The proceedings as a whole could be said to have been fair if the defendant was allowed to appeal against the conviction in absentia and entitled to attend the hearing in the court of appeal entailing the possibility of a fresh factual and legal determination of the criminal charge (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  [ENG]

  The Court has also held that before an accused can be said to have, through his conduct, implicitly waived an important right under Article 6 of the Convention, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his conduct in this regard (see Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

  LOPATA v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, before an accused can be said to have impliedly, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat Tunç v. Turkey, no. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 20508/03

  SINICHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 23369/16

  JAUPI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 43095/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 40156/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 68020/01

  DEMEBUKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 56540/14

  SUSLOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.02.2015 - 66408/12

  SANADER v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05

  DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 28439/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 32432/96

  TALAT TUNÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.08.2024 - 59464/21

  KHACHAPURIDZE AND KHACHIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 37368/15

  CHONG CORONADO c. ANDORRE
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 52009/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37537/13

  BORG v. MALTA
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 40521/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4941/07

  CONIAC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 12543/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 40962/04

  NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20292/04

  ANANYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47081/06

  M.T.B. v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 28263/09

  BARATTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 12167/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41938/04

  KONONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 72359/11

  MALO v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 48657/16

  Für ethnischen Hass in Bosnien-Herzegowina gibt es ein Jahr auf Bewährung
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 14204/07

  MIHELJ v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 10948/05

  CAMPISI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 6246/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 46929/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 24379/02

  KOUNOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 05.03.2026 - 40272/18

  KHATTAB c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 59743/10

  BYKHOVETS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 34839/11

  VYBORNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 30906/06

  GAZIZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 5598/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 23275/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 30265/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 31379/10

  PETRINA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 26850/11

  KATTAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 5450/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 31338/04

  BOYARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 25877/12 (anhängig)

  AKIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 38511/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 333/04

  ALIYKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 25381/02

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 17.03.2026 - 30596/22

  ROCHA CARMELINO v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 48717/08

  KAREMANI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 26239/09

  GIURGIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 28796/05

  BATTISTI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 32823/02

  KIMMEL c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 16114/10

  [ENG]