Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEAS v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Leas v. Estonia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 59577/08

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  The Court cannot speculate as to what the outcome of the proceedings might have been if the violation of the Convention had not occurred (see, for example, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 128, ECHR 2006-IX, and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 59, ECHR 2006-VI).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284) and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons (see C.G.P., cited above; Natunen v. Finland, no. 21022/04, § 43, 31 March 2009; and Janatuinen v. Finland, no. 28552/05, § 45, 8 December 2009).

• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  It will therefore confine its examination to the question of whether the proceedings in their entirety were fair (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 247-B, and Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 59, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  Moreover, an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot also be required to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see, among others, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III, and Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  It will therefore confine its examination to the question of whether the proceedings in their entirety were fair (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 247-B, and Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 59, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00

  MARTINIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  The Court cannot speculate as to what the outcome of the proceedings might have been if the violation of the Convention had not occurred (see, for example, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 128, ECHR 2006-IX, and Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 59, ECHR 2006-VI).
• EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 29835/96

  C.G.P. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  Furthermore, the facilities which should be enjoyed by everyone charged with a criminal offence include the opportunity to acquaint himself, for the purposes of preparing his defence, with the results of investigations carried out throughout the proceedings (see C.G.P. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 29835/96, 15 January 1997, and Foucher v. France, 18 March 1997, §§ 26-38, Reports 1997-II).
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 28552/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  The accused may, however, be expected to give specific reasons for his request (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 52, Series A no. 284) and the domestic courts are entitled to examine the validity of these reasons (see C.G.P., cited above; Natunen v. Finland, no. 21022/04, § 43, 31 March 2009; and Janatuinen v. Finland, no. 28552/05, § 45, 8 December 2009).
• EKMR, 26.06.1996 - 27245/95

  CONNOLLY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08

  The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the possibility to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Connolly v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27245/95, 26 June 1996, and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 220, 9 October 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.07.2024 - C-767/22

  1Dream u. a. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in …

  {FN:74} EGMR, 16. Februar 2000, Rowe und Davis/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2000:0216JUD002890195, §§ 60 und 61), sowie EGMR, 6. März 2012, Leas/Estland (CE:ECHR:2012:0306JUD005957708, § 81).