Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 42010/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,34542) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DELI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 42010/06
In this connection even appearances may be of a certain importance or, in other words, "justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done" (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86, and Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá, cited above, § 147). - EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87
DEMICOLI v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 42010/06
The Court has emphasized that in such a situation the confusion of roles between complainant, witness, prosecutor and judge could self-evidently prompt objectively justified fears as to the conformity of the proceedings with the time-honoured principle that no one should be a judge in his or her own cause and, consequently, as to the impartiality of the bench (see Demicoli v. Malta, judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, pp. 18-19, §§ 41-42, Kyprianou, cited above, §§ 126-128, and Mikhaylova v. Ukraine, no. 10644/08, §§ 58-60, 6 March 2018 with further references).
- EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 65102/14
DUNAS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
In several previous judgments (see, for instance, Russu v. Moldova, no. 7413/05, §§ 19-28, 13 November 2008; Godorozea, cited above, § 31; Rassohin v. Moldova, no. 11373/05, § 34, 18 October 2011 and Deli v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 42010/06, § 51, 22 October 2019), referring also to the interpretation of the domestic law made by the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova (see § 15 above), the Court found that in practice the domestic courts do not accept as sufficient evidence the sending of a letter by a court and require proof of delivery.