دكتور غنام
قناة دكتور أكرم على يوتيوب

آخـــر الــمــواضــيــع

النتائج 1 إلى 2 من 2

الموضوع: TWENTY-ONE DETAINED PERSONS v. GERMANY - 3139/67 [1968] ECHR 15 (06 April 1968)

  1. #1

    افتراضي TWENTY-ONE DETAINED PERSONS v. GERMANY - 3139/67 [1968] ECHR 15 (06 April 1968)

    [align=left]THE FACTS

    Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as
    follows:

    The Applicant is a German national born in 1924 and at present detained
    in the prison at Tegel.
    On .. May, 1966, the Applicant was convicted of theft by Regional Court
    (Landgericht) in Berlin and sentenced to three years penal servitude.

    His appeal (Revision) was rejected by the Federal Court
    (Bundesgerichtshof) in Berlin on .. October, 1966. The sentence of the
    court provided that the period of detention on remand pending appeal,
    less three months, should be counted as part of the Applicant's
    sentence.

    The Applicant's complaint is directed against the courts failure to
    order that this period of three months should also be counted as part
    of his sentence. He maintains that the failure to do so is equivalent
    to an increase of sentence which he alleges is not justified by the
    provisions of any law and is contrary to Article 358, paragraph 2 of
    the Code of Criminal Procedure which he quotes as follows:
    "The judgment appealed against may not be altered to the prejudice of
    the accused with regard to the type or extent of the punishment, if
    only the accused or his legal representative have appealed."

    He maintains that the failure to count this period constitutes a
    discrimination against an appellant who is in prison as compared to an
    appellant who is at liberty. He complains that when he was informed by
    the court of the possibility of an appeal he was not warned of the
    danger that the length of his imprisonment might be so increased if he
    was unsuccessful.

    He also complains that the decision was taken in camera in the absence
    of the accused and his lawyer:

    The Applicant invokes Article 7, paragraph (1) and Article 5, paragraph
    (5) of the Convention.

    THE LAW

    Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that the Federal Court
    in fixing his sentence failed to give credit for three months of the
    period which he had spent in detention on remand pending his appeal,
    it is to be observed that the Convention, under the terms of Article
    1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the rights and freedoms set forth in
    Section I of the Convention; and whereas, under Article 25, paragraph
    (1) (Art. 25-1), only the alleged violation of one of those rights and
    freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the subject of an application
    presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or group of
    individuals,

    Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the
    Commission ratione materiae; whereas no right to obtain credit for a
    period spent in detention on remand is as such included among the
    rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention; whereas in this
    respect the Commission refers to its previous decision, No. 2720/66 -
    X. v. Federal Republic of Germany; whereas it follows that this part
    of the Application is incompatible with the provisions of the
    Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2)
    of the Convention;

    Whereas, in regard to the Applicant's complaint that the decision of
    the Federal Court was taken in camera in the absence of himself and his
    lawyer; an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including
    an examination made ex officio, does not disclose any appearance of a
    violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and
    in particular in Article 6 (Art. 6); whereas neither the prosecution
    nor the defence was represented at the appeal proceedings and there
    was accordingly no violation of the principle of equality of arms which
    is an inherent element of a fair hearing within the meaning of Article
    6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1) of the Convention;

    Whereas the Commission has also considered the written proceedings
    relating to the prosecution's application for summary proceedings in
    the determination of the Applicant's appeal; whereas the Applicant was
    entitled under paragraph (3) of Article 349 of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure to reply in writing to the submissions filed by the
    prosecution; whereas it follows that this part of the Application is
    manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)
    (Art. 27-2), of the Convention:

    Now therefore the Commission declares this application inadmissible.[/align]
    مكتب
    هيثم محمود الفقى
    المحامى بالاستئناف العالى ومجلس الدولة
    المستشار القانونى لنقابة التمريض ا مساعد أمين الشباب لدى منظمة الشعوب العربية لحقوق الانسان ودعم الديمقراطية ا مراقب عام دائم بمنظمة الشعوب والبرلمانات العربية ا مراسل ومحرر صحفى ا

  2. #2
    تاريخ التسجيل
    Jan 2023
    الدولة
    United States
    المشاركات
    46

    افتراضي buy stromectol for humans in tijuana

    stromectol amazon The first clomid cycle my postive peak opk was on day 15 so normal

المواضيع المتشابهه

  1. Dr. M. G. SOLTIKOW v. the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 2257/64 [1968] ECHR 5 (05 Apr
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 7
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:34 AM
  2. X. v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2648/65 [1968] ECHR 8 (06 February 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:29 AM
  3. X. v. SWEDEN - 3071/67 [1968] ECHR 12 (07 February 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:28 AM
  4. X. v. BELGIUM - 2568/65 [1968] ECHR 6 (06 February 1968)
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:27 AM
  5. X. & CO. (ENGLAND) LTD v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY - 3147/67 [1968] ECHR 1
    بواسطة هيثم الفقى في المنتدى Decisions of The European Court of Human Rights
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 07-19-2009, 12:26 AM

المفضلات

المفضلات

ضوابط المشاركة

  • لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
  • لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
  • لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
  • لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك
  •