Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.C. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Frais et dépens (procédure nationale) - demande rejetée Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.09.2003 - 60958/00
• EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 60958/00
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 60958/00

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 60958/00

  On 16 February 2000, following the Court's judgments in T. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999) and V. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX), the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction concerning the trial of children and young persons in the Crown Court.

  The Court observes, firstly, that the attribution of criminal responsibility to, or the trial on criminal charges of, an 11-year-old child does not in itself give rise to a breach of the Convention, as long as he or she is able to participate effectively in the trial (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, §§ 72 and 84, 16 December 1999, and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

  However, following the judgments delivered by the Court in 1999 in T. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999) and V. v. the United Kingdom ([GC]), no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX), it is clear that neither the attribution of criminal responsibility to, nor the trial on criminal charges of, a child of that age gives rise in itself to a breach of the Convention, as long as he or she is able to participate effectively in the trial.

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 60958/00

  On 16 February 2000, following the Court's judgments in T. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999) and V. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX), the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction concerning the trial of children and young persons in the Crown Court.

  The Court observes, firstly, that the attribution of criminal responsibility to, or the trial on criminal charges of, an 11-year-old child does not in itself give rise to a breach of the Convention, as long as he or she is able to participate effectively in the trial (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, §§ 72 and 84, 16 December 1999, and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

  However, following the judgments delivered by the Court in 1999 in T. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999) and V. v. the United Kingdom ([GC]), no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX), it is clear that neither the attribution of criminal responsibility to, nor the trial on criminal charges of, a child of that age gives rise in itself to a breach of the Convention, as long as he or she is able to participate effectively in the trial.

• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 60958/00

  In so far as this may reflect an acceptance of the social worker's belief that some jury members had been antagonised by the applicant and thus somehow may have lost their subjective impartiality, I recall the well-established case-law according to which subjective impartiality is to be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see, for example, De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, § 25).
• EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

  STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 60958/00

  The right of an accused to effective participation in his or her criminal trial generally includes, inter alia, not only the right to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings (see Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, pp. 10-11, § 26).

• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 30443/03

  H. L. gegen Deutschland

  Solche Rechte ergeben sich schon aus dem Prinzip des kontradiktorischen Verfahrens und können auch aus den Garantien abgeleitet werden, die insbesondere in Artikel 6 Abs. 3 Buchstabe c - "sich selbst zu verteidigen" - verankert sind (…siehe u.a. Barberà, Messegué und Jabardo ./. Spanien , Urteil vom 6. Dezember 1988, Serie A Band 146, S. 33-34, Rdnr. 78; Stanford ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Urteil vom 23. Februar 1994, Serie A Band 282-A, S. 10-11, Rdnr 26; S.C. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 60958/00, Rdnr. 28, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 47152/06

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Les autorités sont tenues de prendre des mesures afin que le mineur se sente le moins possible intimidé et inhibé et de veiller à ce qu'il comprenne globalement la nature et l'enjeu pour lui du procès, notamment la portée de toute peine susceptible de lui être infligée ainsi que ses droits, dont celui de ne rien dire (Panovits, précité, § 67, S.C. c. Royaume-Uni, no 60958/00, § 29, CEDH 2004-IV, Martin c. Estonie, no 35985/09, § 92, 30 mai 2013).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 4268/04

  PANOVITS c. CHYPRE

  The authorities must take steps to reduce as far as possible his feelings of intimidation and inhibition (see, mutatis mutandis, T. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 85) and ensure that the accused minor has a broad understanding of the nature of the investigation, of what is at stake for him or her, including the significance of any penalty which may be imposed as well as of his rights of defence and, in particular, of his right to remain silent (mutatis mutandis, S.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 60958/00, § 29, ECHR 2004-IV).

 
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 40631/02

  TIMERGALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained, in particular, in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 - "to defend himself in person" (see, among others, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, pp. 33-34, § 78; Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, pp. 10-11, § 26; and S.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 60958/00, § 28, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 22/03

  GRIGORYEVSKIKH v. RUSSIA

  Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained, in particular, in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 - "to defend himself in person" (see, among others, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 78, Series A no. 146; Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A no. 282-A; and S.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 60958/00, § 28, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 3038/03

  PYLNEV v. RUSSIA

  Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained, in particular, in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 of Article 6 - "to defend himself in person" (see, among others, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, § 78, Series A no. 146; Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A no. 282-A; and S.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 60958/00, § 28, ECHR 2004-IV).