Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELIWIAK v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3c, Art. 6 Abs. 3c MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3c Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Given that the requirements of paragraph 3 (c) represent specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, the Court will examine the applicant's complaints in the light of the two texts taken in combination (see, among many other authorities, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 31-32, § 62).

  Nonetheless, the personal attendance of the defendant does not take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for a trial hearing (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168).

• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 52868/99

  KWIATKOWSKA contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Lastly, 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 guarantee of a fair trial (see Kwiatkowska v. Italy (dec.), no. 52868/99, 30 November 200l, and Hermi, Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 73, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 06.07.2004 - 50545/99

  DONDARINI c. SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  However, where an appellate court has to examine a case as to the facts and the law and make a full assessment of the issue of guilt or innocence, it cannot determine the issue without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the accused for the purpose of proving that he did not commit the act allegedly constituting a criminal offence (see Dondarini v. San Marino, no. 50545/99, § 27, 6 July 2004).

 
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  The latter means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party (see, among other authorities, Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66 and 67, Series A no. 211).
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Even where the court of appeal has jurisdiction to review the case both as to the facts and the law, Article 6 does not always require a right to a public hearing, still less a right to appear in person (see Fejde v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, Series A no. 212-C, p. 68, § 31).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  However, such a waiver must, if it is to be effective for Convention purposes, be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 22.02.1984 - 8209/78

  Sutter ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Proceedings involving only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact, may comply with the requirements of Article 6, despite the fact that the appellant is not given the opportunity to be heard in person by the appeal or cassation court, provided that a public hearing is held at first instance (see, among other authorities, Monnell and Morris, cited above, p. 22, § 58, as regards the issue of leave to appeal, and Sutter v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 13, § 30, as regards the court of cassation).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that in the context of criminal proceedings it is essentially the responsibility of the courts to ensure that a trial is fair (Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 34, Series A no. 297-A).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 3818/04

  Given that the requirements of paragraph 3 (c) represent specific aspects of the right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, the Court will examine the applicant's complaints in the light of the two texts taken in combination (see, among many other authorities, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I, and Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 31-32, § 62).

• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 25852/18

  DELIKTAS v. TÜRKIYE

  Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government's objection (compare Boz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 7906/05, 9 December 2008, and Seliwiak v. Poland, no. 3818/04, § 46, 21 July 2009).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.07.2017 - C-270/17

  Tupikas

  EGMR, 18. Oktober 2006, Hermi/Italien, CE:ECHR:2006:1018JUD001811402, § 62; 21. Juli 2009, Seliwiak/Polen, CE:ECHR:2009:0721JUD000381804, §§ 54 bis 64; 9. Juni 2009, Sobolewski/Polen, CE:ECHR:2009:0609JUD001984707, §§ 33 bis 44; 9. Juni 2009, Strzalkowski/Polen, CE:ECHR:2009:0609JUD003150902, §§ 39 bis 55; 21. September 1993, Kremzow/Österreich, CE:ECHR:1993:0921JUD001235086, § 67; 26. Juli 2002, Meftah/Frankreich, CE:ECHR:2002:0726JUD003291196, § 41; 25. April 2013, Zahirovic/Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2013:0425JUD005859011, §§ 54 bis 57.
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 42937/08

  JANYR c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  La Cour relève en outre que le requérant n'est à aucun moment resté sans représentant devant les juridictions tchèques, qu'il a été au courant de la désignation de Me F. et de ses coordonnées (voir, a contrario, Seliwiak c. Pologne, no 3818/04, § 60, 21 juillet 2009) et qu'il n'a pas refusé ses services (voir a contrario, Sakhnovski c. Russie [GC], no 21272/03, § 91, 2 novembre 2010).