Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  QUINN v. IRELAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-2 No separate issue under Art. 10 Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.09.1999 - 36887/97
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 36887/97

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.02.1993 - 10828/84

  FUNKE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 36887/97

  They also distinguished the Funke v. France judgment (25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A), pointing out that Mr Funke was subjected to a continuing sanction as long as he refused to provide the requested information.
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 36887/97

  The Court has also found Article 6 § 2 to be applicable in respect of the public comments of police officers suggestive of an accused's guilt of charges even though the proceedings on those charges were subsequently discontinued (Allenet de Ribemont v. France judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, §§ 32-37).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 36887/97

  Article 6 § 2 has already been applied, and violations of that provision found, in the Minelli and Sekanina cases (Minelli v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, and Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993 Series A no. 266-A), even though the relevant national courts concerned had, in the former case, closed the proceedings because the limitation period had expired and had, in the latter case, acquitted the applicant.
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13126/87

  SEKANINA c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 36887/97

  Article 6 § 2 has already been applied, and violations of that provision found, in the Minelli and Sekanina cases (Minelli v. Switzerland judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, and Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993 Series A no. 266-A), even though the relevant national courts concerned had, in the former case, closed the proceedings because the limitation period had expired and had, in the latter case, acquitted the applicant.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 38544/97

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren: Schweigerecht und Selbstbelastungsfreiheit …

  The fact that eventually no criminal proceedings for speeding were brought against the applicant, does not remove his victim status ( Funke, cited above, p. 20, § 39 and Quinn v. Ireland , no. 36887/97, §§ 43-46, 21 December 2000, unreported; see also, mutatis mutandis, Heaney and McGuinness , cited above, §§ 43-46).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen Verteidigerbeistand bei der ersten Vernehmung …

  Rn. 81 47. Moreover, the Court observes that the present case is different from previous cases concerning the right to legal assistance in pre-trial proceedings (see Salduz (GC), §§ 12-17 and Öcalan (GC), § 131, both cited above; see also Shabelnik, cited above, § 59; Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 7-10, 11 December 2008; Kolu v. Turkey, no. 35811/97, §§ 14-22, 2 August 2005; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 41, ECHR 2001-X; Quinn v. Ireland, no. 36887/97, §§ 10-13, 21 December 2000; Averill v. the United Kingdom, no. 36408/97, § 55, ECHR 2000-VI; Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, §§ 8-15, ECHR 2000-VI; and Imbrioscia, §§ 9-19, cited above) because the applicant was not formally arrested or interrogated in police custody.
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 978/09

  H. AND J. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The applicants relied in the first place on what they called the nemo tenetur principle, which the Court had recognised in Funke v. France (25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-A), Saunders v. the United Kingdom (17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI) and Quinn v. Ireland (no. 36887/97, 21 December 2000), as a basic requirement of fairness enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head.

• EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 64054/00

  MACKO v. SLOVAKIA

  Considering that the essential issue arising in the present cases has been whether the fines imposed on the applicants were compatible with their rights under Article 6 § 1 to silence and not to incriminate themselves which the Court has examined above, and in the absence of any comments by the applicants as regards Article 10 of the Convention, the Court decides not to pursue the examination of the applications under Article 10 (see also Quinn v. Ireland, no. 36887/97, § 63, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 04.07.2002 - 42297/98

  McMULLEN v. IRELAND

  Nevertheless, the burden of proving the existence of effective and sufficient remedies lies upon the State invoking the rule (Croke v. Ireland, (dec.), no. 33267/96, 15 June 1999, and Quinn v. Ireland, (dec.), no. 36887/97, 21 September 1999, both unreported).
• EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 44179/98

  MURPHY v. IRELAND

  Nevertheless, the burden of proving the existence of effective and sufficient remedies lies upon the State invoking the rule (Croke v. Ireland, (dec.), no. 33267/96, 15 June 1999, and Quinn v. Ireland, (dec.), no. 36887/97, 21 September 1999, both unpublished).