Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STYRMIR ÞÓR BRAGASON v. ICELAND

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BRAGASON v. ICELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 36292/14

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 22574/08

  KASHLEV v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any specific rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way evidence should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national legislation and the domestic courts (see, among other authorities, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, 21 January 1999, Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 40, 26 April 2016, and Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 46182/08, § 34, 5 July 2016).

  It may also be that the accused unequivocally has waived his right to take part in the appeal hearing (see, inter alia, Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 51, 26 April 2016).

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  As the Court has previously stressed, such procedures may be regarded as an important aspect of the execution of its judgments and their availability demonstrates a Contracting State's commitment to the Convention and to the Court's case-law (Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 99, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95

  CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  However, the Court has held that where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of the applicant's guilt or innocence it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused - who claims that he has not committed the act alleged to constitute a criminal offence (see Constantinescu v. Romania, no. 28871/95, 27 June 2000, with reference to Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 32, Series A no. 134; see also Dondarini v. San Marino, no. 50545/99, § 27, 6 July 2004).

• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 58590/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  In addition, the Court attaches weight to the fact that the Supreme Court sentenced the applicant to one year's imprisonment without even having the benefit of a prior assessment of the penalty by the lower court which had heard the applicant directly (see, inter alia, Botten v. Norway, cited above, § 50, Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, cited above, § 35, and Zahirović v. Croatia, no. 58590/11, § 57, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 46182/08

  LAZU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  The Court reiterates that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any specific rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way evidence should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national legislation and the domestic courts (see, among other authorities, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, 21 January 1999, Kashlev v. Estonia, no. 22574/08, § 40, 26 April 2016, and Lazu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 46182/08, § 34, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 19452/02

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  For example, in the case of Igual Coll v. Spain, no. 37496/04, § 36, 10 March 2008, the Court considered that the appeal court had not simply given a different legal interpretation or another application of the law to facts already established at first instance, but had carried out a fresh evaluation of facts beyond purely legal considerations (see also Spînu v. Romania, no. 32030/02, §§ 55-59, 29 April 2008, Andreescu v. Romania, no. 19452/02, §§ 65-70, 8 June 2010, Almenara Alvarez v. Spain, no. 16096/08, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 30643/04

  BAZO GONZALEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  Conversely, in Bazo González v. Spain, no. 30643/04, 16 December 2008, the Court found that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on the ground that the aspects which the appeal court had been called on to analyse in order to convict the applicant had had a predominantly legal character, and its judgment had expressly stated that it was not for it to carry out a fresh evaluation of the evidence; rather, it had only made a different legal interpretation from that of the lower court (contrast Sigurór Arnarsson v. Iceland, cited above, § 34, and Mihaiu v. Romania, no. 43512/02, § 38, 4 November 2008, in which the Court emphasised the predominantly factual nature of the issues.) A similar conclusion was reached in Keskinen and Veljekset Keskinen Oy v. Finland, no. 34721/09, 5 June 2012.
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 17122/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  Similarly, in Marcos Barrios v. Spain, no. 17122/07, §§ 40-41, 21 September 2010, the Court held that the appeal court had expressed itself on a question of fact, namely the credibility of a witness, thus modifying the facts established at first instance and taking a fresh position on facts which were decisive for the determination of the applicant's guilt (see also García Hernández v. Spain, no. 15256/07, §§ 33-34, 16 November 2010).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 16096/08

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  For example, in the case of Igual Coll v. Spain, no. 37496/04, § 36, 10 March 2008, the Court considered that the appeal court had not simply given a different legal interpretation or another application of the law to facts already established at first instance, but had carried out a fresh evaluation of facts beyond purely legal considerations (see also Spînu v. Romania, no. 32030/02, §§ 55-59, 29 April 2008, Andreescu v. Romania, no. 19452/02, §§ 65-70, 8 June 2010, Almenara Alvarez v. Spain, no. 16096/08, 25 October 2011).
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 26958/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2019 - 36292/14

  To this end, there is a close link to the Court's established case-law to the effect that in the determination of a criminal charge the defendant should, as a general rule, be heard by the tribunal convicting him (see, inter alia, Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 26958/05, § 22, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 34721/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 15256/07

  [FRE]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen