Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATOUSEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00

  MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the procedure before the Constitutional Court are set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 61811/00, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 24880/05

  HOLUB c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  They referred to the Court's decision in Holub v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 24880/05, 14 December 2010, and held that there were no substantial differences between that case and the present complaint.

 
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  ACCARDI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  The Court's task under the Convention is only to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Accardi and others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2011 - 33908/04

  BENET PRAHA, SPOL. S R.O., v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  In any case, given that there were no new facts or arguments in the submissions, the Court does not see how they could have influenced the decision of the Constitutional Court or be anyhow important for it at all (a contrario BENet Praha, spol. s r.o. v. the Czech Republic, no. 33908/04, § 142, 24 February 2011, not final, subject to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 51760/99

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 9965/08

  It reiterates however, that it is not its task to review the assessment of evidence by a national court, unless it would be arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000).

• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 15048/09

  HEBAT ASLAN ET FIRAS ASLAN c. TURQUIE

  Aussi, déclarant se fonder sur des décisions rendues par la Cour (Holub c. République tchèque (déc.), no 24880/05, 14 décembre 2010, Matousek c. République tchèque (déc.), no 9965/08, 29 mars 2011, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional c. Portugal (déc.), no 49639/09, 3 avril 2012, et Jirsák c. République tchèque (déc.), no 8968/08, §§ 89-90, 5 avril 2012), il considère que le grief relatif à l'absence de communication de l'avis du procureur doit être déclaré irrecevable en application de l'article 35 § 3 b) de la Convention.