Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAHMANZADEH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BAHMANZADEH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 49327/11

  Ohne Kleidung durch England: Nackt-Wanderer verliert

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 35752/13

  States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system and those who wish to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court as concerns complaints against a State are thus obliged to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see, amongst many authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Gough v. the United Kingdom, no. 49327/11, § 137, 28 October 2014; and and Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 17153/11 and 29 other cases, §§ 69-70, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 19/11

  LANG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HASTIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 35752/13

  19/11 and 36395/11, §§ 15-17, 22 May 2012.
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 4184/10

  HORNCASTLE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 35752/13

  In Horncastle and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 4184/10, 16 December 2014, the applicants complained under Article 6 about the admission of the evidence of an absent witness (hearsay) evidence after their appeal had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in R. v. Horncastle and Others [2009] UKSC 14.

• EGMR, 28.06.2006 - 26499/02

  D. v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 35752/13

  However, an applicant is not required to use a remedy which, "according to settled legal opinion existing at the relevant time", offers no reasonable prospects of providing redress for his complaint (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006; and, more recently, Fox v the United Kingdom (dec.) 61319/09, § 42 20 March 2012).
• EGMR - 61779/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 35752/13

  52999/08 and 61779/08, §§ 43-54, 20 December 2011, the legal issue for the Court's consideration was whether the presence of policemen on a jury was fair, a matter which had been considered by the Supreme Court's predecessor, the House of Lords, in R v. Abdroikof and Others [2007] UKHL 37. The question whether the denial of access to a lawyer during police interrogation rendered criminal proceedings unfair was addressed by the Supreme Court in Cadder v. HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, discussed in this Court's decision in Lang and Hastie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 61319/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 35752/13

  However, an applicant is not required to use a remedy which, "according to settled legal opinion existing at the relevant time", offers no reasonable prospects of providing redress for his complaint (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006; and, more recently, Fox v the United Kingdom (dec.) 61319/09, § 42 20 March 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.04.2019 - 12977/10

  VELICKOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In particular, the Court of Appeal was not given the opportunity to explain its view on the issue complained of before this Court (see Bahmanzadeh v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 35752/13, § 50, 5 January 2016, and contrast Trampevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 4570/07, § 37, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 49964/11

  BHOJWANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It is an established principle, that in a legal system providing constitutional protection for fundamental rights, it is incumbent on the aggrieved individual to test the extent of that protection and, in a common law system, to allow the domestic courts to develop those rights by way of interpretation (see Roberts v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59703/13, § 40, 5 January 2016 and Bahmanzadeh v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35752/13, § 49, 5 January 2016).