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)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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).
• 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).