Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOLMACHEV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TOLMACHEV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13
• EGMR, 07.02.2018 - 73748/13

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that while entrusting the prosecution and punishment of minor offences to administrative authorities is not inconsistent with the Convention, it is to be stressed that the person concerned must have an opportunity to challenge any decision made against him before a tribunal that offers the guarantees of Article 6 (see Kadubec v. Slovakia, 2 September 1998, § 57, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Malige v. France, 23 September 1998, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 56, Series A no. 73).
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  It has not been put in question that the County Court was a "judicial body that [had] full jurisdiction" (see, for example, Gradinger v. Austria, 23 October 1995, §§ 42 and 44, Series A no. 328-C, with further references), and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise.
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  The Court has held that the personal attendance of the defendant does not take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for the trial hearing (see Hermi, cited above, § 60, and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168).

• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  The legislature must accordingly be able to discourage unjustified absences (see, inter alia, Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A; Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 33, ECHR 1999-I; Van Pelt v. France, no. 31070/96, § 66, 23 May 2000; and Neziraj v. Germany, no. 30804/07, § 47, 8 November 2012).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  Furthermore, it must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II, and Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, 21 February 1990, § 66, Series A no. 171-A).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  The Court has consistently found that the latter interest prevailed and that, consequently, the fact that a defendant, in spite of having been properly summoned, did not appear, could not - even in the absence of an excuse - justify depriving him of his right under Article 6 § 3 of the Convention to be defended by counsel (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-B; Van Geyseghem, loc. cit.; Van Pelt, loc. cit.; Harizi v. France, no. 59480/00, § 49, 29 March 2005; Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen v. Finland, no. 13566/06, § 31, 22 September 2009; and Neziraj, cited above, §§ 48-49).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  However, having regard to the special features of the proceedings involved and taking account of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order (see Hermi, loc. cit.; Ekbatani v. Sweden, 26 May 1988, § 27, Series A no. 134; and Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 56, Series A no. 115), the Court considers that the County Court's role in the present case was not the same as that of a traditional court of appeal.
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

  KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  At the same time, the Court reiterates that neither the letter nor the spirit of Article 6 of the Convention prevents a person from waiving of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, the entitlement to the guarantees of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 2000).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 13566/06

  Anwendung des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren in Rechtsmittelverfahren …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  The Court has consistently found that the latter interest prevailed and that, consequently, the fact that a defendant, in spite of having been properly summoned, did not appear, could not - even in the absence of an excuse - justify depriving him of his right under Article 6 § 3 of the Convention to be defended by counsel (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-B; Van Geyseghem, loc. cit.; Van Pelt, loc. cit.; Harizi v. France, no. 59480/00, § 49, 29 March 2005; Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen v. Finland, no. 13566/06, § 31, 22 September 2009; and Neziraj, cited above, §§ 48-49).
• EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 37442/97

  P.K. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 73748/13

  The Convention requirements could only be complied with on the condition that the applicant had an opportunity to challenge the decision of the police before a tribunal in proceedings that did offer the fair trial guarantees of Article 6. The Court has no reason to doubt that the County Court's finding that it could not resolve the case in the applicant's absence proceeded from and was in line with the fair trial requirements including the principle of immediacy (see, for example, P.K. v. Finland (dec.), no. 37442/97, 9 July 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen