Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 28599/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,59890) 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
EL MOTASSADEQ v. GERMANY
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- BGH, Ermittlungsrichter, 27.11.2001 - 2 BGs 597/01
- OLG Hamburg, 19.02.2003 - 2 BJs 88/01
- OLG Hamburg, 15.12.2003 - 2 BJs 88/01
- BGH, 08.01.2004 - StB 20/03
- OLG Hamburg, 05.02.2004 - 2 BJs 85/01
- BGH, 04.03.2004 - 3 StR 218/03
- OLG Hamburg, 07.04.2004 - 2 BJs 88/01
- OLG Hamburg, 27.10.2004 - 2 BJs 85/01
- BGH, 09.06.2005 - 3 StR 269/04
- OLG Hamburg, 14.06.2005 - 2 BJs 85/01
- OLG Hamburg, 19.08.2005 - 2 BJs 88/01
- OLG Hamburg, 26.08.2005 - 2 BJs 88/01
- OLG Hamburg, 28.09.2005 - 2 BJs 85/01
- BGH, 28.10.2005 - 2 StE 4/02
- BVerfG, 01.02.2006 - 2 BvR 2056/05
- OLG Hamburg, 08.02.2006 - 2 BJs 88/01
- OLG Hamburg, 16.11.2006 - 2 BJs 88/01
- BGH, 16.11.2006 - 3 StR 139/06
- OLG Hamburg, 08.01.2007 - 7-1/06
- BVerfG, 10.01.2007 - 2 BvR 2557/06
- BGH, 02.05.2007 - 3 StR 145/07
- EGMR, 25.06.2007 - 28599/07
- EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 28599/07
- BGH, 10.04.2014 - StB 22/13
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 28599/07
However, Article 6 § 1 does not require the legislature to regulate every detail in this area by a formal Act of Parliament if the legislature establishes at least the organisational framework for the judicial organisation (see Sojus Trade Company GmbH and Deutsche Consulting GmbH v. Germany (dec.), no. 32411/96, 20April 1999, and Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 33, Series A no. 53). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 28599/07
The Court's role under Article 6 § 1 is not to assess the facts which led the domestic courts to adopt one decision rather than another (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B) and Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee a particular outcome in any case or that the "right result" will be reached by the domestic courts (see Klasen v. Germany, no. 75204/01, § 43, 5 October 2006). - BVerfG, 01.03.2000 - 2 BvR 2049/99
Schuldspruchberichtigung durch Revisionsgericht verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 28599/07
In order to simplify the proceedings in certain circumstances and according to generally accepted practice, which has been approved by the Federal Constitutional Court (see e.g. decision of 1 March 2000, file no. 2 BvR 2049/99), Art. 354 (1) can be applied mutatis mutandis by the court hearing the appeal. - EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 75204/01
Menschenrechte: Überlange Verfahrensdauer eines sozialgerichtlichen Verfahrens
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 28599/07
The Court's role under Article 6 § 1 is not to assess the facts which led the domestic courts to adopt one decision rather than another (see Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 59, Series A no. 316-B) and Article 6 § 1 does not guarantee a particular outcome in any case or that the "right result" will be reached by the domestic courts (see Klasen v. Germany, no. 75204/01, § 43, 5 October 2006).