Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05, 35680/05, 36085/05, 45553/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,57169
EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05, 35680/05, 36085/05, 45553/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,57169)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.07.2011 - 35485/05, 35680/05, 36085/05, 45553/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,57169)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juli 2011 - 35485/05, 35680/05, 36085/05, 45553/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,57169)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,57169) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HUSEYN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-b Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d Violation of Art. 6-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (35)

  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

    DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
    As regards the type of proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill-will for personal reasons (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 25, Series A no. 86).

    The Court notes that proceedings, viewed as a whole, can be considered fair if any defects of the original trial are subsequently remedied by the appeal courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 39, Series A no. 247-B, and De Cubber, cited above, § 33, Series A no. 86, with further reference to Adolf v. Austria, 26 March 1982, §§ 38-40, Series A no. 49).

  • EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

    DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
    It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 38, Series A no. 62), but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41, and Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-43, ECHR 2000-X).
  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

    SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05
    In such circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

    Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

    The domestic court is free, subject to compliance with the terms of the Convention, to refuse to call witnesses proposed by the defence, for instance on the ground that the court considers their evidence unlikely to assist in ascertaining the truth (see Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05, § 196, 26 July 2011, with further references).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

    OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

    In many cases where the domestic proceedings were found to be in breach of the Convention, the Court has held that the most appropriate form of reparation for the violations found could be the reopening of the domestic proceedings (see, for example, Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05, § 262, 26 July 2011, with further references).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 1586/15

    ROOK v. GERMANY

    Dabei wird der Gerichtshof jeden der dieser Beschwerde zugrundeliegenden Gründe prüfen, um festzustellen, ob das Verfahren insgesamt fair war (siehe, mit weiteren Nachweisen, Huseyn u. a../. Aserbaidschan, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 35485/05 und drei weitere, Rdnr. 158, 26. Juli 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht