Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,56203) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violations of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-b and 6-3-c No Violation of Art. 7 Violations of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
- EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
- EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
Wird zitiert von ... (22) Neu Zitiert selbst (40)
- EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88
CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
The importance to the rights of the defence of ensuring confidentiality in the relations between the accused and his lawyers has been affirmed in various international instruments and the Court's case-law (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 133, ECHR 2005-IV; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, §§ 38-40, ECHR 2001-X, and Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, § 47).The Court reiterates that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; and Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000).
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
Although there was no allegation of overcrowding beyond the design capacity or of a shortage of sleeping places (see, by contrast, Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 89, 15 November 2007, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI), the conditions in the prison were nevertheless extremely cramped.Furthermore, the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).
- EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99
PULLICINO v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
Indeed, the defence of the accused's interests may best be served by the contribution which the accused makes to his lawyer's conduct of the case before the accused is called to give evidence (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., and Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000).
- EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96
Schießbefehl
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
When speaking of "law" Article 7 alludes to the very same concept as that to which the Convention refers elsewhere when using that term, a concept which comprises written as well as unwritten law and implies qualitative requirements, notably those of accessibility and foreseeability (see, among other authorities, S.W. v. the United Kingdom and C.R. v. the United Kingdom, judgments of 22 November 1995, Series A no. 335-C, §§ 34-35 and §§ 32-33; and Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], no. 34044/96, 35532/97, 44801/98, § 50, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99
AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, in order to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for instance, Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 32 and 34, ECHR 2006-..., and Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002). - EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99
VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
In any event, the Court reiterates that, although physical separation of a detainee from his visitors may be justified by security considerations in certain cases (see the above-cited Italian cases and also the Dutch cases concerning a prison regime designed to prevent escapes: Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 71, ECHR 2003-II, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 85, 4 February 2003), the measure cannot be considered necessary in the absence of any established security risk (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 117, 19 June 2007). - EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99
LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
In any event, the Court reiterates that, although physical separation of a detainee from his visitors may be justified by security considerations in certain cases (see the above-cited Italian cases and also the Dutch cases concerning a prison regime designed to prevent escapes: Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 71, ECHR 2003-II, and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 85, 4 February 2003), the measure cannot be considered necessary in the absence of any established security risk (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 117, 19 June 2007). - EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96
KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003). - EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 33914/02
SKOROBOGATOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
As regards his challenges to judicial officers and procedural requests, the Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his or her interest (see Skorobogatova v. Russia, no. 33914/02, § 47, 1 December 2005). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 65411/01
SACILOR LORMINES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds that in the applicant's case the Russian criminal law failed to provide the guarantees that would have been sufficient to exclude any objective doubt as to the absence of inappropriate pressure on judges in the performance of their judicial duties (compare Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 36, ECHR 2000-X, and, by contrast, Sacilor-Lormines v. France, no. 65411/01, § 67, ECHR 2006-...). - EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
ESTRIKH v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02
CIORAP v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 74613/01
Rechtssache J. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
- EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99
KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2008 - 74357/01
KUOLELIS, BARTOSEVICIUS AND BUROKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81
CAN v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88
POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 12005/86
BORGERS v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96
JABLONSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
BALOGH v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05
CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02
Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland
- EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02
KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03
TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01
BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02
GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
LIND v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
W. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
- BVerwG, 11.07.2013 - 5 C 23.12
Entschädigung; angemessene -; Entschädigungsanspruch; Entschädigungsanspruch bei …
Dies gilt auch, soweit in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte - allerdings obiter und deshalb die jeweilige Entscheidung nicht tragend - eine Verfahrenslaufzeit von etwa einem Jahr pro Instanz als grober Anhalt ("rough rule of thumb") genannt wird (…vgl. Urteile vom 26. November 2009 - Nr. 13591/05, Nazarov/Russland - Rn. 126, vom 9. Oktober 2008 - Nr. 62936/00, Moiseyev/Russland - Rn. 160 …und vom 16. Januar 2003 - Nr. 50034/99, Obasa/Großbritannien - Rn. 35 ). - BFH, 07.11.2013 - X K 13/12
Unangemessene Dauer eines finanzgerichtlichen Klageverfahrens
Ganz überwiegend sind diese Entscheidungen von vornherein nicht zu Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK ergangen, der den Anspruch auf Entscheidung "innerhalb angemessener Frist" enthält, sondern zu Freiheitsentziehungen i.S. des Art. 5 EMRK, der in Abs. 4 einen Anspruch auf gerichtliche Entscheidung "innerhalb kurzer Frist" vorsieht (zu Strafverfahren in der Russischen Förderation vgl. Entscheidungen des EGMR vom 7. April 2005 54071/00 --Rokhlina--; vom 8. November 2005 6847/02 --Khudoyorov--; vom 24. Mai 2007 27193/02 --Ignatov--, Rz 111; vom 9. Oktober 2008 62936/00 --Moiseyev--, Rz 160, und vom 26. November 2009 13591/05 --Nazarov--, Rz 126; zur zwangsweisen Unterbringung eines als "Psychopathen" eingestuften Straftäters in einer britischen Klinik vgl. EGMR-Urteil vom 20. Februar 2003 50272/99 --Hutchison Reid--, Rz 79). - BVerwG, 11.07.2013 - 5 C 27.12
Enteignungsentschädigung; Entschädigung; angemessene -; Entschädigungsanspruch; …
Dies gilt auch, soweit in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte - allerdings obiter und deshalb die jeweilige Entscheidung nicht tragend - eine Verfahrenslaufzeit von etwa einem Jahr pro Instanz als grober Anhalt ("rough rule of thumb") genannt wird (…vgl. Urteile vom 26. November 2009 - Nr. 13591/05, Nazarov/Russland - Rn. 126, vom 9. Oktober 2008 - Nr. 62936/00, Moiseyev/Russland - Rn. 160 …und vom 16. Januar 2003 - Nr. 50034/99, Obasa/Großbritannien - Rn. 35 ).
- EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12
Lampedusa-Haft war illegal
Thus, in such cases, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 where the lack of space went together with other poor material conditions of detention such as: a lack of ventilation and light (see Torreggiani and Others, cited above, § 69; see also Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 124-27, 9 October 2008); limited access to outdoor exercise (see István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, no. 15707/10, § 26, 17 January 2012) or a total lack of privacy in the cell (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007). - EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04
KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE
En d'autres termes, l'État ne peut avoir toute latitude pour introduire des restrictions générales sans prévoir une dose de flexibilité permettant de déterminer si les limitations apportées dans chaque cas particulier sont opportunes ou réellement nécessaires (voir, mutatis mutandis, Moïsseïev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 254-255, 9 octobre 2008), spécialement en ce qui concerne les détenus condamnés (Harakchiev et Tolumov, précité, § 204). - EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 23190/17
PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL
Aussi, dans pareilles affaires, la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 dès lors que le manque d'espace s'accompagnait d'autres mauvaises conditions matérielles de détention, telles qu'un manque de ventilation et de lumière (Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 69 ; voir également Moisseiev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 124-127, 9 octobre 2008 ; Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, § 84, 12 juin 2008 ; et Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, § 44, 18 octobre 2007), un accès limité à la promenade en plein air (István Gábor Kovács c. Hongrie, no 15707/10, § 26, 17 janvier 2012 ; Efremidze c. Grèce, no 33225/08, § 38, 21 juin 2011 ; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, §§ 88-89, 27 janvier 2011 ; Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 69, 21 décembre 2010 ; Shuvaev c. Grèce, no 8249/07, § 39, 29 octobre 2009 ; et Vafiadis c. Grèce, no 24981/07, § 36, 2 juillet 2009) ou un manque total d'intimité dans les cellules (Szafransky c. Pologne, no 17249/12, §§ 39-41, 15 décembre 2015 ; Veniosov c. Ukraine, no 30634/05, § 36, 15 décembre 2011 ; Mustafayev c. Ukraine, no 36433/05, § 32, 13 octobre 2011 ; Belevitski c. Russie, no 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1er mars 2007 ; Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 106-107, CEDH 2005-X (extraits) ; et Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 32 et 40-43, 2 juin 2005). - EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04
ROMOKHOV v. RUSSIA
Moreover, in a number of judgments the Court has held that the problem of overcrowding was of a structural nature and thus did not concern the applicants' personal situation (see Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 34, 19 June 2008; Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)). - EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
GENERALOV v. RUSSIA
It has also found it established that the problems arising from the conditions of detention in Russian remand prisons were of a structural nature (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006, and Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004). - EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1066/05
DOROGAYKIN v. RUSSIA
The Court has also established that the problems arising from the conditions of detention in Russian remand centres were of a structural nature (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006, and Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 October 2008). - EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 10638/08
ALEKHIN v. RUSSIA
A violation of that Article was also found in cases where an applicant was transported many times to the courthouse and back in extremely cramped conditions (see Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 131 to 136, 9 October 2008, where the applicant was transported on more than one hundred and fifty days; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53 to 60, 31 July 2008, where the applicant was transported on one hundred and ninety-five days; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 92 to 99, 12 June 2008, where the applicant was transported on more than one hundred days; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118 to 120, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), where the applicant was transported on about two hundred days). - EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02
DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02
POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 52193/09
VOLFOVYCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 35878/08
PANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 4963/06
KURUSHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 45353/05
FATIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 27498/06
ZHIZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 43589/02
SALAKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 15172/07
KONYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 30468/07
MALAKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 35644/08
KIRSANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08
KOMISSAROVA v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,60525) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
- EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
- EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1210, § 66; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 75, ECHR 1999-V).The burden of proof is on the Government to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
- EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87
ARTNER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
Furthermore, the Court finds no appearance of negligence on the part of the domestic authorities in their attempts to ensure the attendance of these persons before the trial court (cf. Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, § 21). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
Accordingly, the Court does not find it established that the subsequent refusal of the trial court to call Mr G. as a witness prejudiced the defence rights or rendered the proceedings unfair (see Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, § 46).
- EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The applicant refers to the Court's findings in the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain case (judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 70). - EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97
BARFUSS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The Court further recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Barfuss v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 35848/97, 7 September 1999). - EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89
ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The Court recalls at the outset that Article 6 § 2 prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person charged with the criminal offence is guilty before he has been so proved according to law, but it also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 41). - EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
As regards witnesses for the prosecution, the Court has accepted on a number of occasions (see, among other authorities, Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, § 34; Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, § 47) that it may prove necessary in certain circumstances to refer to depositions made during the investigative stage. - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
However, where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The burden of proof is on the Government to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 6 § 3 are connected and the right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation must be considered in the light of the accused's right to prepare his defence (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 33394/96
PRICE CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
- EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,79868) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 8 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
- EKMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
- EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1210, § 66; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 75, ECHR 1999-V).The burden of proof is on the Government to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
- EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The applicant refers to the Court's findings in the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain case (judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, § 70). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
Accordingly, the Court does not find it established that the subsequent refusal of the trial court to call Mr G. as a witness prejudiced the defence rights or rendered the proceedings unfair (see Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, § 46).
- EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87
ARTNER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
Furthermore, the Court finds no appearance of negligence on the part of the domestic authorities in their attempts to ensure the attendance of these persons before the trial court (cf. Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, § 21). - EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
Only exceptional circumstances can prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6 (Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, § 89). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 6 § 3 are connected and the right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation must be considered in the light of the accused's right to prepare his defence (Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 51, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97
BARFUSS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The Court further recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Barfuss v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 35848/97, 7 September 1999). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
However, where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions that have been made by a person whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined, whether during the investigation or at the trial, the rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6 (see Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
The burden of proof is on the Government to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00
As regards witnesses for the prosecution, the Court has accepted on a number of occasions (see, among other authorities, Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, § 34; Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, § 47) that it may prove necessary in certain circumstances to refer to depositions made during the investigative stage. - EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89
ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE