Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUSTAFA (ABU HAMZA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  However, an issue may arise under Article 6 where a legitimate expectation is created by the actions of the authorities and a defendant acts upon that legitimate expectation to his detriment (see, for example, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §§ 138 and 139, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  The Secretary of State's decision and the allegations made in support of it therefore fall some way short of the clear declarations as to the applicant's guilt which were made in Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, §§ 38-41, and which gave rise to a finding of a violation of Article 6 § 2 in that case.
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Briten dürfen Hassprediger an USA ausliefern

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, 6 July 2010).

• EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

  PULLICINO v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  On the contrary, as the trial judge noted in refusing to stay the proceedings on 7 February 2006, all the indications were that the jury were working their way through the evidence before them (see, in this respect, Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000).
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 30779/04

  PATSOURIA ET AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  It is not normally for the Court to determine the appropriateness of a decision to prosecute (see, mutatis mutandis, Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007; Bielaj v. Poland, no. 43643/04, § 56, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 43643/04

  BIELAJ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  It is not normally for the Court to determine the appropriateness of a decision to prosecute (see, mutatis mutandis, Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007; Bielaj v. Poland, no. 43643/04, § 56, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 4491/02

  NOYE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  However, in the majority of cases the nature of the trial process and, in particular, the role of the trial judge in directing the jury will ensure that the proceedings are fair (see, for example, Noye v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 4491/02, 21 January 2003).
• EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25935/94

  HARDIMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 31411/07

  Indeed as its case-law indicates, the Court will require cogent evidence that concerns as to the impartiality of jurors are objectively justified before any breach of Article 6 § 1 can be found (Pullar v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III; Hardiman v. the United Kingdom no. 25935/94, Commission decision of 28 February 1996, unreported; Gregory v. the United Kingdom, 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.07.2023 - 21181/19

  TULEYA v. POLAND

  The appropriateness of a decision to prosecute thus normally falls out of the scope of the Court's review (see Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007, and Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 34, 18 January 2011).".
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 50541/08
  More broadly, in cases involving trial by jury the Court has regularly emphasised the importance of directions given to the jury by the trial judge to ensure the fairness of the proceedings (see, for instance, Mustafa (Abu Hamza) (No. 1) v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 40, 18 January 2011; Beggs v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15499/10, § 124, 16 October 2012 (with further references therein)).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 57435/09

  PAULIKAS v. LITHUANIA

  It will require cogent evidence that concerns about the impartiality of judges are objectively justified before any breach of Article 6 § 1 can be found (see Craxi v. Italy (no. 1), no. 34896/97, §§ 99 and 103, 5 December 2002, and Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 39, 18 January 2011, and the cases cited therein).

• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 7031/05

  INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The appropriateness of a decision to prosecute thus normally falls out of the scope of the Court's review (see Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, § 42, 6 November 2007, and Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 34, 18 January 2011).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 25551/18

  TADIC v. CROATIA

  It will require cogent evidence that concerns about the impartiality of judges are objectively justified before any breach of Article 6 § 1 can be found (see Craxi, cited above, §§ 99 and 103, and Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 39, 18 January 2011, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 43627/16

  OKROPIRIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  Rn. 63 The above principles apply equally to jurors as to professional and lay judges (see, among many other authorities, Hanif and Khan v. the United Kingdom, nos. 52999/08 and 61779/08, 20 December 2011; Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, 18 January 2011; and Ekeberg and Others v. Norway, nos.
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 30971/12

  ALI AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  He distinguished this Court's decision in Mustafa (Abu Hamza) (No. 1) v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 39, 18 January 2011, on a number of grounds, including the generalised nature of the reporting in that case compared to the specific reporting on the trial and the facts to be decided by the jury in his case; the delay of over a year between the reporting and the trial in Mustafa (Abu Hamza) compared to the period of just five months in his case; and the specificity of the trial judge's directions in Mustafa (Abu Hamza) compared to the "entirely formulaic and minimal" directions in his case.
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3503/06

  FILEVA v. BULGARIA

  The Court has stressed that a tribunal must be impartial from a subjective as well as an objective view (see Mustafa (Abu Hamza) (No. 1) v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, § 37, 18 January 2011; for a description of the two tests developed by the Court, see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 93-99, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 57645/14

  AHMED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  These principles apply equally to jurors as to professional and lay judges (see, among many authorities, Hanif and Khan v. the United Kingdom, nos. 52999/08 and 61779/08, 20 December 2011; Mustafa (Abu Hamza) v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31411/07, 18 January 2011; and Ekeberg and Others v. Norway, nos.