Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BOU? A v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 63703/19

  MUCHA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 34067/23

  If so, was the tribunal which dealt with the applicant's case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular in view of the manner in which that tribunal referred to the applicant in its previous judgment concerning his co-accused who had entered into a plea-bargain agreements (see Meng v. Germany, no. 1128/17, 16 February 2021; Mucha v. Slovakia, no. 63703/19, 25 November 2021)?.

  Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, in its judgment concerning the applicant's co-accused, did the tribunal make it sufficiently clear that it was not also implicitly determining the applicant's guilt, so as to avoid, as far as possible, giving the impression that it was prejudging it (see Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, 27 February 2014; Bauras v. Lithuania, no. 56795/13, 31 October 2017; and Mucha v. Slovakia, no. 63703/19, §§ 57-58, 25 November 2021)?.

• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 1128/17

  Meng ./. Deutschland - Konventionsverletzung durch Beteiligung eines nicht …

  Auszug aus EGMR - 34067/23

  If so, was the tribunal which dealt with the applicant's case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular in view of the manner in which that tribunal referred to the applicant in its previous judgment concerning his co-accused who had entered into a plea-bargain agreements (see Meng v. Germany, no. 1128/17, 16 February 2021; Mucha v. Slovakia, no. 63703/19, 25 November 2021)?.
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 17103/10

  Verletzung des Grundsatzes der Unschuldsvermutung gegenüber einem türkischen …

  Auszug aus EGMR - 34067/23

  Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, in its judgment concerning the applicant's co-accused, did the tribunal make it sufficiently clear that it was not also implicitly determining the applicant's guilt, so as to avoid, as far as possible, giving the impression that it was prejudging it (see Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, 27 February 2014; Bauras v. Lithuania, no. 56795/13, 31 October 2017; and Mucha v. Slovakia, no. 63703/19, §§ 57-58, 25 November 2021)?.

 
• RG, 30.11.1923 - I 878/23

  Wanderstock - § 32 StGB, Erforderlichkeit, § 16 StGB, aberratio ictus, …

  Auszug aus EGMR - 34067/23

  The Constitutional Court dismissed that constitutional appeal (no. IV. ÚS 878/23), holding that the proceedings against the applicant's co-accused had to be disjoined because they had concluded plea-bargain agreements, that any change in the composition of the bench subsequently hearing the applicant's case would amount to a violation of his right to a lawful judge or protract the proceedings, and that the applicant had been convicted on the basis of K.B.'s detailed statements which remained consistent throughout the proceedings and was corroborated by other evidence.
• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 56795/13

  BAURAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 34067/23

  Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, in its judgment concerning the applicant's co-accused, did the tribunal make it sufficiently clear that it was not also implicitly determining the applicant's guilt, so as to avoid, as far as possible, giving the impression that it was prejudging it (see Karaman v. Germany, no. 17103/10, 27 February 2014; Bauras v. Lithuania, no. 56795/13, 31 October 2017; and Mucha v. Slovakia, no. 63703/19, §§ 57-58, 25 November 2021)?.
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 45084/14

  ADAMCO v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 34067/23

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that he was convicted mainly on the basis of a statement given by K.B. who had previously entered into a plea bargain agreement (see, mutatis mutandis, Xenofontos and others v. Cyprus, nos. 8725/16, 74339/16 and 74359/16, 25 October 2022; Adamco v. Slovakia, no. 45084/14, 12 November 2019)?.
• EGMR - 74339/16 (anhängig)

  CRASOPOULIS v. CYPRUS and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR - 34067/23

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that he was convicted mainly on the basis of a statement given by K.B. who had previously entered into a plea bargain agreement (see, mutatis mutandis, Xenofontos and others v. Cyprus, nos. 8725/16, 74339/16 and 74359/16, 25 October 2022; Adamco v. Slovakia, no. 45084/14, 12 November 2019)?.