Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AZDAJIC v. SLOVENIA

  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AZDAJIC v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12
• EGMR, 05.04.2017 - 71872/12

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  F.C.B. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  However, the consequences which the domestic judicial authorities attributed to it are disproportionate, having regard to the prominent place which the right to a fair trial holds in a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention (see, also, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 35, Series A no. 208-B).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  It further emphasises that it is for the national authorities to ensure that the requirements of a "fair hearing" are met in each individual case (see Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  However, such a waiver must be established in an unequivocal manner, must be attended by the minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 31, Series A no. 277-A), and must not run counter to any important public interest (see Sejdovic, cited above, § 86).

 
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

  Dieter Krombach

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  In that case, it referred in particular to the rule that, although proceedings that took place in the accused's absence were not, of themselves, incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice nevertheless occured, where a person convicted in absentia was subsequently unable to obtain a fresh determination on the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact, from a court which had given him a hearing, in circumstances where it had not been established that he had waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see, for instance, Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 29, Series A no. 89; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 85, ECHR 2001-II; Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 66, ECHR 2004-IV; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12952/87

  RUIZ-MATEOS c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  However, the general concept of a fair trial, encompassing the fundamental principle that proceedings should be adversarial (see Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, § 63, Series A no. 262), requires that all parties to civil proceedings should have the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed or evidence adduced with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Lobo Machado v. Portugal, 20 February 1996, § 31, Reports 1996-I).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  EINHORN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  In that case, it referred in particular to the rule that, although proceedings that took place in the accused's absence were not, of themselves, incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice nevertheless occured, where a person convicted in absentia was subsequently unable to obtain a fresh determination on the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact, from a court which had given him a hearing, in circumstances where it had not been established that he had waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see, for instance, Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 29, Series A no. 89; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 85, ECHR 2001-II; Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 66, ECHR 2004-IV; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86

  HENNINGS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  Therefore, in view of the fact that she planned to be absent from her home for two months, it would not be unreasonable to expect from her that she would take some measures to ensure the receipt of her mail in order to be able to comply with the requisite time-limits laid down in the domestic law, in case of institution of proceedings against her (see, for instance, Hennings v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 26, Series A no. 251-A, and Maas v. Germany (dec.), no. 71598/01, 15 September 2005).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  In that case, it referred in particular to the rule that, although proceedings that took place in the accused's absence were not, of themselves, incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, a denial of justice nevertheless occured, where a person convicted in absentia was subsequently unable to obtain a fresh determination on the merits of the charge, in respect of both law and fact, from a court which had given him a hearing, in circumstances where it had not been established that he had waived his right to appear and to defend himself (see, for instance, Colozza v. Italy, 12 February 1985, § 29, Series A no. 89; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 85, ECHR 2001-II; Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 66, ECHR 2004-IV; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-II).
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 71872/12

  Finally, the Court reiterates that its task is not to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether or not the manner in which they were applied to, or affected the applicant, gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Padovani v. Italy, 26 February 1993, § 24, Series A no. 257-B).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 20.12.2017 - C-571/17

  Ardic

  36 Vgl. EGMR, 14. März 2014, Dilipak und Karakaya/Türkei (CE:ECHR:2014:0304JUD000794205, §§ 76-80), und EGMR, 8. Oktober 2015, A?¾dajic/Slowenien (CE:ECHR:2015:1008JUD007187212, § 50).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.05.2016 - C-108/16

  Dworzecki - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …

  33 - Vgl. EGMR, 8. Oktober 2015, A?¾dajic/Slowenien, CE:ECHR:2015:1008JUD007187212, §§ 57 und 58.