Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1994,19756
EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89 (https://dejure.org/1994,19756)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.09.1994 - 14861/89 (https://dejure.org/1994,19756)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. September 1994 - 14861/89 (https://dejure.org/1994,19756)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1994,19756) 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

    LALA c. PAYS-BAS

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
    Violation de l'art. 6-1+6-3-c Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6-2 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LALA v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
    Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Not necessary to examine Art. 6-2 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • Serie A Nr. 297-A
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (70)

  • EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 30804/07

    Verletzung des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand durch die Verwerfung der Berufung

    However, the European Court of Human Rights had given judgments in respect of other Contracting States to the Convention which concerned the defendant's absence and his counsel's presence in order to defend him at trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A; Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A; Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-B; Van Geyseghem v. Belgium (GC), no. 26103/95, ECHR 1999-I; and Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, ECHR 2001-II).

    Neither the Federal Constitutional Court nor the Government had shown that the facts at issue in the present application differed from those at issue in the Court's case-law as established, inter alia, in the applications of Poitrimol v. France (23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A), Lala v. the Netherlands (22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A), Van Geyseghem v. Belgium ((GC), no. 26103/95, ECHR 1999-I), Krombach v. France (no. 29731/96, ECHR 2001-II) and Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen v. Finland (no. 13566/06, 22 September 2009), in which the Court had found a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.

    As a general rule, this was equally true for an appeal by way of a rehearing (see, inter alia, Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A; and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-B).

  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

    VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

    At the time of the hearing in the Brussels Court of Appeal on 13 September 1993 the applicant was therefore in a situation comparable to the one considered by the Court in the Poitrimol v. France case (see the judgment cited above, p. 15, § 35) and the Lala and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands cases (see the judgments of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A and B, p. 13, § 31, and p. 34, § 38, respectively).

    This is one - though not a decisive - difference between the present case and the Poitrimol case cited above and the cases of Lala v. the Netherlands and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands (judgments of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A and B).

  • EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

    Dieter Krombach

    The Government noted, lastly, that as regards the right of an accused who has expressly refused to appear to be defended by a lawyer, the Court had systematically referred in its decisions concerning criminal verdicts delivered in default to the fact that it was impossible to apply for an order quashing the judgments (see the following judgments: Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A, p. 15, § 35; Lala and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, Series A no. 297-A and -B, p. 13, § 33 in fine and pp. 34-35, § 40, respectively; and Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 29, ECHR 1999-I, which concerned an application to have a judgment entered in default by a criminal court set aside).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht