Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 11423/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,70306) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PELLO v. ESTONIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 11423/03
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,51725) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PELLO v. ESTONIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 11423/03
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03
A conviction should not be based either solely or to a decisive extent on statements which the defence has not been able to challenge (see, among others, A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX, and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 40, ECHR 2001-II, and, more recently, Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, § 42, 26 July 2005). - EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96
MEFTAH AND OTHERS v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03
The Court notes at the outset that, since the guarantees of paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 of this Article, it will consider the complaint about the lack of a possibility to examine the two witnesses at issue under the two provisions taken together (see Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos. 32911/96, 35237/97 and 34595/97, § 40, ECHR 2002-VII). - EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82
BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 11423/03
Therefore, even though it is normally for the national courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to call a witness, 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 Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 179, 13 July 2006, Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 41, 18 May 2004, and Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158, p. 31, § 89).
- EGMR, 18.12.2014 - 27304/07
EFENDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Even where the evidence of an absent witness has not been sole or decisive, the Court has still found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) when no good reason has been shown for the failure to have the witness examined (see, for example, in Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238; Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, 26 July 2005; Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, 8 June 2006; and Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, 12 April 2007). - EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 37981/06
SARKIZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
It is true that even where the evidence of an absent witness has not been sole or decisive, the Court has still found a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) when no good reason has been shown for the failure to have the witnesses examined (see, for example, in Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238, Mild and Virtanen v. Finland, no. 39481/98 and 40227/98, 26 July 2005, Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, 8 June 2006; and Pello v. Estonia, no. 11423/03, 12 April 2007).