Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEHTINEN v. FINLAND (No. 2)

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 46, 20 January 2004, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 74-79, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test of whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 33, § 73).
• EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 48339/99

  KANGASLUOMA v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

  The scope of the Contracting States" obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI, Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 46, 20 January 2004, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 74-79, ECHR 2006-...).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 20511/03

  I v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that under Article 41 of the Convention no awards are made in respect of the time or work put into an application by the applicant as this cannot be regarded as monetary costs actually incurred by him or her (see Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 61222/00

  UOTI v. FINLAND

  Furthermore, under Article 41 of the Convention no awards are made in respect of the time or work put into an application by the applicant as this cannot be regarded as monetary costs actually incurred by him or her (see Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 39105/05

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that under Article 41 of the Convention no awards are made in respect of the time or work put into an application by the applicant as this cannot be regarded as monetary costs actually incurred by him or her (see, Brincat v. Italy, 26 November 1992, § 29, Series A no. 249-A, Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, no. 39731/98, §§ 52 and 54, ECHR 2003-IV, Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 63679/00

  SZULC v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  It follows that, in accordance with its case-law, even if the applicant had indeed spent time working on the case, the Court cannot make an award under this head, as this time would not represent monetary costs actually incurred by him (see Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, § 114, 24 May 2005, and Lehtinen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8 June 2006).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEHTINEN v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 41585/98

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98

  This requirement is satisfied where the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the courts' interpretation of it and appropriate legal advice, what acts or omissions will make him criminally liable (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, §§ 50-51, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98

  The Court refers on this point to its established case-law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 25, § 45).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98

  The right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation must be considered in the light of the accused's right to prepare his defence (see e.g. Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, §§ 51-54, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98

  The objective impartiality may, however, be jeopardised if a judge takes part in several consecutive stages of the same set of proceedings (see, e.g., Piersack v. Belgium, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, pp. 14-15, § 30).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98

  (b) As to his complaint that the Minister of Justice's public statement in March 2001 on white-collar criminality violated his presumption of innocence, the Court recalls that the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is one of the elements of a fair criminal trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. Where a civil servant, without any qualification or reservation, makes a declaration with the effect of encouraging the public to believe that an accused is guilty and, secondly, prejudging the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority, there may a breach of the right of the accused to remain innocent until proved guilty according to law (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 41).
• EGMR, 06.06.2012 - 48339/99

  KANGASLUOMA AND 34 OTHER CASES AGAINST FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98

  As for this Government's preliminary objection, the Court notes that it has found in the context of Article 13 that no effective remedy existed for the enforcement of a right to hearing within a reasonable time (Kangasluoma v. Finland, no. 48339/99, § 49, 20 January 2004).
• EKMR, 06.12.1989 - 11879/85

  ROSSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98

  The fact that a judge has participated in previous proceedings concerning the same party does not in itself justify doubts as to his or her impartiality (see, e.g. no. 11879/85, 6.12.1989, D. R. 65, p. 232, and no. 17722/91, 8.4.1991, D. R. 69, p. 345).
• EKMR, 08.04.1991 - 17722/91

  c. CHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 41585/98

  The fact that a judge has participated in previous proceedings concerning the same party does not in itself justify doubts as to his or her impartiality (see, e.g. no. 11879/85, 6.12.1989, D. R. 65, p. 232, and no. 17722/91, 8.4.1991, D. R. 69, p. 345).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen