Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55653
EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55653)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.04.2011 - 42310/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55653)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. April 2011 - 42310/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55653)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55653) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE

    Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violations of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-2 Violations of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violations of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Remainder inadmissible ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (79)Zitiert selbst (35)

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    The quality of the evidence is also taken into account, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubts on its reliability or accuracy (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-IX).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    The Court must establish, firstly, whether the costs and expenses indicated by the first applicant were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

    Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    As a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008).
  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45-46, Series A no. 140, and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    The Court emphasises that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should review whether this law has been complied with (see, among many other references, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996-III, and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

    Dieter Krombach

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    The Court emphasises that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

    Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84
    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
    The Court notes that Article 5 § 3 of the Convention forms a whole with Article 5 § 1 (c) and that these two provisions must be read in conjunction with each other (see Smirnova, cited above, § 56, and Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, § 38, Series A no. 148).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

    JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 37083/03

    TEBIETI MÜHAFIZE CEMIYYETI AND ISRAFILOV c. AZERBAIDJAN

  • EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

    LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

    KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

    ISAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

    NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

    DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 38717/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

    SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 19611/04

    SUBINSKI v. SLOVENIA

  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

    KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

    TOTEVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99

    CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  • EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 27504/95

    ILOWIECKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 28653/05

    BUZILOV v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  • EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

    SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 2161/02

    MOLODORYCH v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 7324/02

    KOBTSEV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

    SPINOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08

    Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …

    (d) Access to a lawyer (i) The position in the Court's case-law 255. The right of everyone "charged with a criminal offence" to be effectively defended by a lawyer, guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (c), is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Salduz, cited above, § 51; and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 262, 21 April 2011).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

    Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine

    Nechiporuk et Yonkalo c. Ukraine, no 42310/04, § 297, 21 avril 2011.
  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11

    GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court has previously held, in examining the fairness of criminal proceedings, that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point made by the accused, the domestic courts had fallen short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht