Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 68693/01
• EGMR, 14.10.2004 - 68693/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 68693/01

  Article 13 therefore offers an alternative: a remedy is "effective" if it can be used either to expedite a decision by the courts dealing with the case, or to provide the litigant with adequate redress for delays that have already occurred (see the Kudla judgment cited above, §§ 158 and 159, and Mifsud v. France [GC], (dec.), no. 57220/00, 11 September 2002, § 17).
• EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 60350/00

  CANELA SANTIAGO contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 68693/01

  Nevertheless, there may be certain circumstances in which such a refusal by a national court might infringe the principle of the fairness of judicial proceedings, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, particularly when it appears to be arbitrary (see inter alia Societe Divagsa v. Spain (dec.) no. 20631/92, Decisions and reports (D.R.) 74, p. 279, Moosbrugger v. Austria (dec.), no. 44861/98, 25 January 2000 and Canela Santiago v. Spain (dec.), no. 60350/00, 4 October 2001).
• EKMR, 12.05.1993 - 20631/92

  SOCIETE DIVAGSA contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 68693/01

  Nevertheless, there may be certain circumstances in which such a refusal by a national court might infringe the principle of the fairness of judicial proceedings, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, particularly when it appears to be arbitrary (see inter alia Societe Divagsa v. Spain (dec.) no. 20631/92, Decisions and reports (D.R.) 74, p. 279, Moosbrugger v. Austria (dec.), no. 44861/98, 25 January 2000 and Canela Santiago v. Spain (dec.), no. 60350/00, 4 October 2001).

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 44861/98

  MOOSBRUGGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 68693/01

  Nevertheless, there may be certain circumstances in which such a refusal by a national court might infringe the principle of the fairness of judicial proceedings, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, particularly when it appears to be arbitrary (see inter alia Societe Divagsa v. Spain (dec.) no. 20631/92, Decisions and reports (D.R.) 74, p. 279, Moosbrugger v. Austria (dec.), no. 44861/98, 25 January 2000 and Canela Santiago v. Spain (dec.), no. 60350/00, 4 October 2001).
• EGMR, 14.02.2002 - 48470/99

  JENSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 68693/01

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that an individual may be deprived of his status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention if the domestic courts acknowledge, at least in substance, a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and consequently meter out a more lenient sentence or exempt the defendant from defraying legal costs (see inter alia Graaskov Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 68693/01

  As to the question whether the applicants have exhausted domestic remedies, the Court recalls that the purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see e.g. Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen