Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.10.1999 - 32106/96
• EGMR, 13.09.2001 - 32106/96
• EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 32106/96

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 32106/96

  The Court recalls that the principle of equality of arms - one of the elements of the broader concept of fair trial - requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent (see the Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, p. 19, § 33; Ankerl v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, pp. 1567-68, § 38).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 32106/96

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention 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 the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis, the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46; the Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 31, § 24 and the Garcia Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports 1999-I, pp. 98-99, § 28).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 32106/96

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention 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 the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis, the Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, § 46; the Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, p. 31, § 24 and the Garcia Ruiz v. Spain judgment of 21 January 1999, Reports 1999-I, pp. 98-99, § 28).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
  The Court therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached by the manner in which counsel, Ms Ya. had rendered legal assistance to the applicant and because the applicant had not been assisted by counsel during the appeal proceedings (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002 and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 107, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  The Court therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached by the domestic courts" alleged failure to communicate to the applicant the complete set of documents submitted by the defendant (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 107, 24 July 2008).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 10.03.2016 - C-543/14

  Ordre des barreaux francophones und germanophone u.a. - Mehrwertsteuer - …

  {FN:31} - Vgl. beispielsweise Urteile Dombo Beheer B.V./Niederlande vom 27. Oktober 1993 (Beschwerde-Nr. 14448/88, § 33, Serie A Nr. 274), Ankerl/Schweiz vom 23. Oktober 1996 (§ 38, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-V), Kress/Frankreich (Große Kammer, Beschwerde-Nr. 39594/98, § 72, EGMR 2001) und Komanický/Slowakei vom 4. Juni 2002 (Beschwerde-Nr. 32106/96, § 45).

• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05

  [ENG]

  It therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached because of the allegedly erroneous assessment of the evidence in the applicant's case (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002, and Vladimir Romanov, cited above, § 107).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05

  DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA

  It therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached in view of other irregularities complained of by the applicant (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  [ENG]

  It therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached because of the allegedly erroneous assessment of the evidence in the applicant's case (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002 and Vladimir Romanov, cited above, § 107).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 1111/02

  TROFIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 34-39 above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the applicant's complaints (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002).
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 18268/03

  CANADY v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  Having regard to its conclusion that there was an infringement of the applicant's right to a hearing by a tribunal satisfying the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the reasons stated above, and considering that it has only limited powers to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by national authorities, the Court does not find it necessary to examine separately the applicant's complaint relating to the alleged arbitrariness of the imposition of a fine on him (see also, mutatis mutandis, Kadubec, cited above, § 61, and Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002).
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 6945/04

  ILATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  It therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached because the lay judges" term of office had been extended by the President's Decrees while the Lay Judges Act, setting the new procedure for the selection of lay judges, had already come into force (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002 and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 107, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 32881/04

  K.H. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court's role is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole were fair (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see, for example, Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein, no. 63151/00, §§ 54-55, 19 May 2005 and Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, §§ 45-47, 4 June 2002).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 21510/03

  GROZDANOSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"