Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=08.12.2009&Aktenzeichen=44023/02
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 22:04:11
Document Index: 414409510

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', '§ 3', '§ 68', '§ 122', '§ 74', '§ 91', '§ 77', '§ 1', '§ 100', '§ 170', '§ 82', '§ 122', '§ 73', '§ 122', '§ 72', '§ 82', '§ 210', 'in fine', '§ 3', '§ 68', '§ 74', '§ 102', '§ 51', '§ 40', '§ 57', '§ 108', '§ 110']

EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2009,69259
EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 44023/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,69259)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.12.2009 - 44023/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,69259)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Dezember 2009 - 44023/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,69259)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,69259) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Violations of Art. 6-1+6-3-d Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)
EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 44023/02
As to the second applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 3 about the length of his pre-trial detention, the Court recalls that pre-trial detention ends for Convention purposes with the finding of guilt and the imposition of sentence at first instance (Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 68, 8 December 2009).
The most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings if requested (see Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 122, 8 December 2009; Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, §§ 74-76, 20 April 2010; Berhani v. Albania, no. 847/05, § 91, 27 May 2010; and, Shkalla v. Albania, no. 26866/05, §§ 77-79, 10 May 2011).
EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 847/05
The Court will not in principle intervene, unless the decisions reached by the domestic courts appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable and provided that the proceedings as a whole were fair as required by Article 6 § 1 (see Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 100, 8 December 2009; and Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts)).
The Court reiterates that, where it finds that an applicant has been convicted without being afforded one of the safeguards of a fair trial, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, in due course and in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see Xheraj v. Albania, no. 37959/02, § 82, 29 July 2008; Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 122, 8 December 2009 and Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, §§ 73-77, 20 April 2010).
The Court observes that when an applicant has been convicted in breach of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 122, 8 December 2009; Salduz, cited above, § 72; Xheraj v. Albania, no. 37959/02, § 82, 29 July 2008; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV).
EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 20134/05
ALIMUCAJ v. ALBANIA
As regards the applicant's complaints concerning the length of his detention under Article 5 § 3, the Court reiterates that pre-trial detention comes to an end for the purposes of the Convention with the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed at first instance (see Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 68, 8 December 2009).
EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 12315/04
The Court finds that this complaint was introduced within the six-month time-limit, running from the final domestic court decision of 10 February 2006 (see Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 74, 8 December 2009).
EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 57687/09
SAHAKYAN AND MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA
The rights of the defence are restricted to an extent that is incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 if the conviction is based solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 102, 8 December 2009; Vozhigov v. Russia, no.5953/02, § 51, 26 April 2007; Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II; and Solakov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 47023/99, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).".
Furthermore, the domestic courts issued summonses to ensure the attendance of T., who, as discovered by the domestic authorities, had left the country for an unspecified address (contrast Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, §§ 108 and 115, 8 December 2009).
EGMR, 13.07.2017 - 61257/08
OZOLS v. LATVIA
In the present case, it is demonstrated by the documents submitted to the Court that the domestic courts gave sufficient arguments to enable the applicant to understand the reasons for his conviction (see to the contrary, for example, Caka v. Albania, no. 44023/02, § 110, 8 December 2009).