Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TARASOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Tarasov v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 17416/03

  However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 17416/03

  Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf; its essential aim, as indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is full equality of arms in the matter (see Vidal v. Belgium, 25 March 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81

  CAN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 17416/03

  The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the opportunity to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53; Connolly v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27245/95, 26 June 1996; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 78, 20 January 2005).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 17416/03

  Although it is normally for the national courts to assess the evidence before them, as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce, there might be exceptional circumstances which could prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6 (see Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158, and Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 41, 18 May 2004).

• EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 26230/11

  KAPUSTYAK v. UKRAINE

  While the testimony of the witnesses requested by the applicant could have shed light on the question of his possible ill-treatment, this testimony would have been relevant for the applicant's trial had he made a confession to the police and the domestic courts had relied on it securing his conviction (compare Tarasov v. Ukraine, no. 17416/03, § 105, 31 October 2013), or if this testimony would be of other importance to his conviction (see, for example, Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, §§ 28 and 29, ECHR 2003-V).