Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 34 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  In particular, the Court is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45, Series A no. 140).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  In such situation, though it is doubtful that the absence of counsel was imputable to the authorities, they should have ensured, for instance by adjourning the hearing and/or appointing another counsel, that the defence rights were secured in the appeal proceedings to an extent compatible with Article 6 of the Convention (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, § 36, Series A no. 37, and Balliu v. Albania, no. 74727/01, §§ 35-38, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment brought to it must be supported by appropriate evidence (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  Indeed, even where an appeal court has full jurisdiction to review the case on questions both of fact and of law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing and a fortiori a right to be present in person (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168, and Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 31, Series A no. 212-C).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  There are exceptions to this principle, but they must not infringe the rights of the defence (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  Regard must be had in assessing this question to, inter alia, the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests were presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it (see Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 212-A), and their importance for the appellant (see Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 59, Series A no. 268-B; Kamasinski, § 106 in fine; and Ekbatani, §§ 27 and 28, both cited above).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  Regard must be had in assessing this question to, inter alia, the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests were presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it (see Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 212-A), and their importance for the appellant (see Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 59, Series A no. 268-B; Kamasinski, § 106 in fine; and Ekbatani, §§ 27 and 28, both cited above).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  As regards the findings under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the relevant proceedings if requested (see Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV, and Shulepov, cited above, § 46).
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 15869/02

  CUDAK v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  See also the concurring opinion of Judge Malinverni in Pavlenko v. Russia, (no. 42371/02, 1 April 2010), the concurring opinion of Judge Malinverni, joined by Judges Casadevall, Cabral Barreto, Zagrebelsky and Popovic in the case of Cudak v. Lithuania ([GC], no. 15869/02, 23 March 2010), as well as the concurring opinion of Judges Rozakis, Spielmann, Ziemele and Lazarova Trajkovska in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  The Court also reiterates that, according to its constant case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  PREZEC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 6945/04

  ILATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 26746/05

  SHISHKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court does not consider that any established delays in the processing of correspondence in the present case were such as to amount to a breach of the State's obligation under Article 34 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 134, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sevastyanov v. Russia, no. 37024/02, §§ 84-87, 22 April 2010).