Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIRILACHVILI c. RUSSIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (40)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  However, this fact as such does not prove his personal bias; there is nothing to suggest that the applicant's doubts about the neutrality of this expert were objectively justified (see Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, § 44).

  The Court observes that in its case-law it has recognised that the lack of neutrality on the part of a court-appointed expert may in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms (see Bönisch v. Austria, judgment of 6 May 1985 (merits), Series A no. 92, §§ 30-35, and Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, § 33).

• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  However, whatever the system of criminal investigation, if the accused chooses an active defence, he should be entitled to seek and produce evidence "under the same conditions" as the prosecution (see, mutatis mutandis, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no. 274, § 33; see also Peric v. Croatia, no. 34499/06, § 19, 27 March 2008).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  In situations involving "national security" considerations for withholding documentary evidence, the Court has applied a less exacting standard (see P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom (no. 44787/98, § 69, ECHR 2001-IX).

• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  The Court observes that in its case-law it has recognised that the lack of neutrality on the part of a court-appointed expert may in certain circumstances give rise to a breach of the principle of equality of arms (see Bönisch v. Austria, judgment of 6 May 1985 (merits), Series A no. 92, §§ 30-35, and Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, § 33).
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 39482/98

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (rechtliches Gehör; Waffengleichheit; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  Not only should the evidence directly relevant to the facts of the case be examined in an adversarial procedure, but also other evidence that might relate to the admissibility, reliability and completeness of the former (see, mutatis mutandis, Windisch v. Austria, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 186, § 28; see also Dowsett v. the United Kingdom, no. 39482/98, § 41, ECHR 2003-VII; see Verhoek v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 54445/00, 27 January 2004).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  In view of the importance of appearances in matters of criminal justice (see, among other authorities, Borgers v. Belgium, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B, § 24), the Court therefore concludes that the proceedings in question, taken as a whole, did not satisfy the requirements of a "fair hearing".
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  Not only should the evidence directly relevant to the facts of the case be examined in an adversarial procedure, but also other evidence that might relate to the admissibility, reliability and completeness of the former (see, mutatis mutandis, Windisch v. Austria, judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 186, § 28; see also Dowsett v. the United Kingdom, no. 39482/98, § 41, ECHR 2003-VII; see Verhoek v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 54445/00, 27 January 2004).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  In sum, in order to determine whether there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3, the Court may have to examine separately each limb of the applicant's complaint and then make an overall assessment (see, mutatis mutandis, Goddi v. Italy, judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, § 28).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34209/96

  S.N. v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  As a rule, the Convention does not prohibit in absolute terms relying on evidence which has not been examined in adversarial proceedings (see, among other authorities, Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, § 34, and Lüdi, cited above, § 47; see also Asch v. Austria, cited above, §§ 28 et seq.) Still, such evidence should be treated "with extreme care" (see S.N. v. Sweden, no. 34209/96, § 53, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 26668/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  As a general rule, in such cases the Court has to verify whether the reasons for keeping secret a witness" identity or a document were "relevant and sufficient" (see, in particular, Doorson v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1996, Reports 1996-II, pp. 470-71, § 71; see also Visser v. the Netherlands, no. 26668/95, § 47, 14 February 2002).
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27052/95

  JASPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 15.10.1980 - 8403/78

  JESPERS v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 10.09.2002 - 40461/98

  LEWIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 29777/96

  FITT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02

  STOIMENOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 46503/99

  KLIMENTYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34499/06

  PERIC v. CROATIA
• EKMR, 15.01.1997 - 29835/96

  C.G.P. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 30.06.1993 - 18613/91

  E.V.H. v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 15187/03

  BOTMEH AND ALAMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 31.03.1993 - 18425/91

  K.J. v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 27.01.2004 - 54445/00

  VERHOEK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EKMR, 19.02.1992 - 15853/89

  G. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
• EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96

  SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 43149/98

  KOK c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 09.05.2003 - 59506/00

  GEORGIOS PAPAGEORGIOU v. GREECE
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 39209/02

  SCHEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 69116/01

  MAYALI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 47986/99

  GOSSA v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH, 30.10.2025 - C-2/23

  Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Wettbewerb - Art. 101 AEUV - Praktische …

  Rn. 85 Außerdem hat der EGMR entschieden, dass ein Verfahren, in dem der Zugang zu Beweismitteln in Ansehung der Natur der streitigen Dokumente und nicht aufgrund einer Analyse ihres Inhalts verweigert wurde, mit einem schweren Fehler behaftet ist (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 11. Dezember 2008, Mirilashvili/Russland, CE:ECHR:2008:1211JUD000629304, §§ 206 bis 208).
• EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 2170/24

  Osman Kavala

  De plus, l'effet cumulatif de plusieurs vices de procédure peut conduire à une violation de l'article 6 quand bien même la Cour n'aurait pas conclu au manque d'équité du procès à raison de chacun d'eux, pris isolément (Mirilachvili c. Russie, no 6293/04, § 165, 11 décembre 2008).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 24.10.2024 - C-2/23

  FL und KM Baugesellschaft und S - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Wettbewerb - …

  {FN:44} EGMR, 24. Juni 2003, Dowsett/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2003:0624JUD003948298, §§ 41 und 42), EGMR, 31. März 2009, Natunen/Finnland, Beschwerde Nr. 21022/04 (CE:ECHR:2009:0331JUD002102204, § 40), und EGMR, Mirilachvili/Russland, 11. Dezember 2008 (CE:ECHR:2008:1211JUD000629304, §§ 203 bis 209).

  {FN:45} EGMR, Mirilachvili/Russland, 11. Dezember 2008 (CE:ECHR:2008:1211JUD000629304, § 206).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 05.06.2019 - C-189/18

  Glencore Agriculture Hungary - Gemeinsames Mehrwertsteuersystem - Richtlinie …

  {FN:22} Vgl. Urteil des EGMR vom 11. Dezember 2008, Mirilashvili/Russland (CE:ECHR:2008:1211JUD000629304, § 200 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA

  In particular, unavailability of the necessary medical equipment may raise an issue under Article 3 if it has negative effects on the applicant's state of health or causes suffering of a certain intensity (see Mirilashvili v. Russia (dec.) no. 6293/04, 10 July 2007).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 28370/05

  [ENG]

  The Court also reiterates that unavailability of medicines may raise an issue under Article 3 if it has negative effects on the applicant's state of health or causes suffering of a certain intensity (see Mirilashvili v. Russia (dec.) no. 6293/04, 10 July 2007).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA

  Having referred to the general principles laid down by the Court in a number of judgments concerning the standards of medical care of detainees (see Aleksanyan, cited above; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, ECHR 2002-IX; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI), the Government stressed that the applicant had received comprehensive medical care in detention.
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 44103/05

  NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In addition, before deciding whether or not there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court must take into account the "proceedings as a whole" (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, § 164, 11 December 2008; and Kinský v. the Czech Republic, no. 42856/06, § 83, 9 February 2012).
• EGMR, 10.03.2026 - 27950/23

  STROPUS v. LITHUANIA

  The question whether the amount awarded at the domestic level constituted sufficient redress in the present case must be examined in the light of the overall treatment which the applicant received and his state of health, including the consequences of his not being provided with the medication in question (see, mutatis mutandis, Mirilashvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 6293/04, 10 July 2007; Viorel Burzo v. Romania, nos.
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 30942/04

  [ENG]

  In addition, it observes that before deciding whether or not there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention it is to take into account the "proceedings as a whole" (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, § 164, 11 December 2008; and Kinský v. the Czech Republic, no. 42856/06, § 83, 9 February 2012).