Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 61821/00, 7413/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,40751) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZILIBERBERG AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 1 OTHER CASE
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZILIBERBERG CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.05.2004 - 61821/00
- EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 61821/00
- EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 61821/00, 7413/05
Wird zitiert von ...
- EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 71314/13
CSISZER ET CSIBI c. ROUMANIE
L'impossibilité d'imposer de telles sanctions rendrait illusoire le pouvoir de l'État d'exiger le respect de ses lois (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kudrevicius et autres, précité, § 149, et Ziliberberg c. Moldova (déc.), no 61821/00, 4 mai 2004).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7413/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,60551) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RUSSU v. MOLDOVA
(englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7413/05
The Court further refers to the principle according to which the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 58-67, ECHR 2006-...; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 81-85 and 91-95, ECHR 2006-...; Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B; and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168). - EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7413/05
This includes, inter alia, a right not only to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings (see, for example, Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A no. 282-A, and BarberaÌ?, MessegueÌ and Jabardo v. Spain 6 December 1988, § 78, Series A no. 146). - EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86
KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7413/05
The Court further refers to the principle according to which the presence in person of the accused at a hearing of an appeal where only points of law were considered was not crucial (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 58-67, ECHR 2006-...; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 81-85 and 91-95, ECHR 2006-...; Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B; and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168). - EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90
STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 7413/05
This includes, inter alia, a right not only to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings (see, for example, Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A no. 282-A, and BarberaÌ?, MessegueÌ and Jabardo v. Spain 6 December 1988, § 78, Series A no. 146).
- EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 65102/14
DUNAS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
In several previous judgments (see, for instance, Russu v. Moldova, no. 7413/05, §§ 19-28, 13 November 2008; Godorozea, cited above, § 31; Rassohin v. Moldova, no. 11373/05, § 34, 18 October 2011 and Deli v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 42010/06, § 51, 22 October 2019), referring also to the interpretation of the domestic law made by the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova (see § 15 above), the Court found that in practice the domestic courts do not accept as sufficient evidence the sending of a letter by a court and require proof of delivery. - EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 29096/06
NORD-UNIVERSAL S.R.L. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
À ce titre, elle rappelle avoir déjà eu l'occasion de constater que, s'agissant des convocations aux audiences, les juridictions moldaves n'acceptaient pas comme preuve suffisante l'envoi d'une lettre par le tribunal et qu'elles exigeaient une preuve que la lettre de convocation était bien parvenue au destinataire (Russu c. Moldova, no 7413/05, § 24, 13 novembre 2008).