Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  XHERAJ v. ALBANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of P7-4 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim rejected Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02
• EGMR, 09.07.2014 - 37959/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  On the whole, the Court is called upon to examine whether the proceedings that led to the applicant's retrial, in their entirety, were fair (see, among other authorities, Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 63-68, 15 December 2005, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38 and S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 43, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  On the whole, the Court is called upon to examine whether the proceedings that led to the applicant's retrial, in their entirety, were fair (see, among other authorities, Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 63-68, 15 December 2005, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38 and S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 43, ECHR 2002-V).

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX) or if serious legitimate considerations outweigh the principle of legal certainty (see Bratyakin v. Russia (dec.), no. 72776/01, 9 March 2006).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

  NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  The mere possibility of reopening a criminal case is prima facie compatible with the Convention, including the guarantees of Article 6. It must be assessed in the light of, for example, Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7, which expressly permits a State to reopen a case due to the emergence of new facts, or where a fundamental defect is detected in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case (see Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 54-57, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Savinskiy v. Ukraine, no. 6965/02, § 23, 28 February 2006).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  On the whole, the Court is called upon to examine whether the proceedings that led to the applicant's retrial, in their entirety, were fair (see, among other authorities, Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, § 63-68, 15 December 2005, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38 and S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 43, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 22.08.2006 - 7352/03

  BESHIRI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  The Court reiterates its findings in the Balliu v. Albania admissibility decision (no. 74727/01), subsequently upheld in Beshiri and Others v. Albania, (no. 7352/03, § 32, 22 August 2006), where it held that a complaint to the Albanian Constitutional Court could be considered an effective remedy which had to be used for the purposes of Article 35 of the Convention where fair-trial issues arose.
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 65582/01

  RADCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  The relevant considerations to be taken into account in this connection include, in particular, the effect of the reopening and any subsequent proceedings on the applicant's individual situation and whether the reopening resulted from the applicant's own request; the grounds on which the domestic authorities revoked the finality of the judgment in the applicant's case; the compliance of the procedure at issue with the requirements of the domestic law; the existence and operation of procedural safeguards in the domestic legal system capable of preventing abuses of this procedure by the domestic authorities; and other pertinent circumstances of the case (Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 44, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 6965/02

  SAVINSKI CONTRE L'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  The mere possibility of reopening a criminal case is prima facie compatible with the Convention, including the guarantees of Article 6. It must be assessed in the light of, for example, Article 4 § 2 of Protocol No. 7, which expressly permits a State to reopen a case due to the emergence of new facts, or where a fundamental defect is detected in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case (see Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 54-57, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Savinskiy v. Ukraine, no. 6965/02, § 23, 28 February 2006).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 72776/01

  BRATYAKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 37959/02

  A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character (Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IX) or if serious legitimate considerations outweigh the principle of legal certainty (see Bratyakin v. Russia (dec.), no. 72776/01, 9 March 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen